United States v. Schulze

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

United States v. Schulze

77 F. 607, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2994

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedDecember 9, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 77 F. 607 (United States v. Schulze) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Schulze, 77 F. 607, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2994 (circtsdny 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

WHEELER, District Judge.

The tariff act of 1894 places a duty, by paragraph 59, on “all medicinal preparations not specially provided for,” and by paragraph 664 puts on the free list “vaccine virus.” This importation is of antitoxin. It was classified under the former paragraph, and the protest raised the question whether it should he free under the latter. Antitoxin is a different thing from vaccine virus. It comes from a different source, is used for a different although somewhat similar purpose, and operates in a different way. The former seems to cure disease, and the latter introduces a milder form to obviate what would he worse. The latter has such a well-defined meaning, applicable to one thing, that, against a first impression, it does not now seem capable of covering, by any implication, such a different thing as the former. Decision of general appraisers reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WHEELER, District Judge.

The tariff act of 1894 places a duty, by paragraph 59, on “all medicinal preparations not specially provided for,” and by paragraph 664 puts on the free list “vaccine virus.” This importation is of antitoxin. It was classified under the former paragraph, and the protest raised the question whether it should he free under the latter. Antitoxin is a different thing from vaccine virus. It comes from a different source, is used for a different although somewhat similar purpose, and operates in a different way. The former seems to cure disease, and the latter introduces a milder form to obviate what would he worse. The latter has such a well-defined meaning, applicable to one thing, that, against a first impression, it does not now seem capable of covering, by any implication, such a different thing as the former. Decision of general appraisers reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 F. 607, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2994, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-schulze-circtsdny-1896.