United States v. Seyd

Second Circuit

United States v. Seyd

158 F. 408, 85 C.C.A. 518, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4003

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 8, 1907

DocketNo. 57 (4,211)

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 158 F. 408 (United States v. Seyd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Seyd, 158 F. 408, 85 C.C.A. 518, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4003 (2d Cir. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The paper imported is concededly handmade paper. It is also surface-coated paper, and the single question is whether it shall be classified for duty under paragraph 398 or paragraph 401 of the Tariff Act of July 24, 1897 (30 Stat. 188, 189, c. 11, § 1, Schedule M [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 1671, 1672]). Paragraph 398-covers “surface-coated papers not specially provided for in this-act.” Paragraph 401 covers “handmade paper,” both plain and “ruled, bordered, embossed, printed or decorated in any manner,” but without the qualification “not specially provided for in this act.” Under familiar principles of construction (U. S. v. Reiss & Brady, 136 Fed. 741, 69 C. C. A. 393) it should be classified under paragraph 401,. being a surface-coated paper which is specially provided for as “handmade.” The court below followed a former ruling of the Circuit Court (Miller v. U. S. [C. C.] 128 Fed. 469) that the handmade papers referredto in paragraph 401 must be ejusdem generis with the-[409]*409-writing, letter, bond, note, drawing, and similar papers enumerated therein. This court, however, in Benneche v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 153 Fed. 861, disapproved of that construction, holding that the phrase “handmade” in paragraph 401 was not to be thus restricted. That decision controls this case.

Decision reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The paper imported is concededly handmade paper. It is also surface-coated paper, and the single question is whether it shall be classified for duty under paragraph 398 or paragraph 401 of the Tariff Act of July 24, 1897 (30 Stat. 188, 189, c. 11, § 1, Schedule M [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 1671, 1672]). Paragraph 398-covers “surface-coated papers not specially provided for in this-act.” Paragraph 401 covers “handmade paper,” both plain and “ruled, bordered, embossed, printed or decorated in any manner,” but without the qualification “not specially provided for in this act.” Under familiar principles of construction (U. S. v. Reiss & Brady, 136 Fed. 741, 69 C. C. A. 393) it should be classified under paragraph 401,. being a surface-coated paper which is specially provided for as “handmade.” The court below followed a former ruling of the Circuit Court (Miller v. U. S. [C. C.] 128 Fed. 469) that the handmade papers referredto in paragraph 401 must be ejusdem generis with the-[409]*409-writing, letter, bond, note, drawing, and similar papers enumerated therein. This court, however, in Benneche v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 153 Fed. 861, disapproved of that construction, holding that the phrase “handmade” in paragraph 401 was not to be thus restricted. That decision controls this case.

Decision reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 F. 408, 85 C.C.A. 518, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4003, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-seyd-ca2-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack