United States v. United States Exp. Co.

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

United States v. United States Exp. Co.

94 F. 642, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3088

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

DecidedMay 17, 1899

DocketNo. 2,809

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 94 F. 642 (United States v. United States Exp. Co.) 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. United States Exp. Co., 94 F. 642, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3088 (circtsdny 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

TOWNSEND, District Judge.

The articles in question are strips of pearl, commercially known as “pearl scales” or “stock pearl,” classified for duty at 5 cents apiece, as “parts of knives, wholly or partly manufactured,” under paragraph 153 of the act of 1897. The importer protests, claiming that the articles are dutiable at 35 per cent, ad valorem, under paragraph 450 of said act, as “manufactures of mother-of-pearl, not specially provided for.” It is agreed that they are not raw material, but manufactured articles. The question presented is whether they are parts of knives. On behalf of the United States it is urged that inasmuch as in some cases they are shipped, in accordance with orders, in certain sizes, and inasmuch as their chief use is for knife handles, they are parts [643]*643of knives, partly manufactured, under tbe decisions in Magone v. Wiederer, 159 U. S. 555, 16 Sup. Ct. 122, In re Blumenthal, 51 Fed. 76, and U. S. v. Simon, 84 Fed. 154. It further appears, however, that the articles in question are the cheapest quality of pearl, are sometimes sold by the pound and in all sizes a.nd shapes, and. are used on fans and opera glasses, for inlaying work, and for the handles of button hooks, corkscrews, and other articles. And inasmuch as in their present condition they are not necessarily a part of a knife handle, and would not necessarily be recognized as such, and are not in such a condition as to be part of the knife without being further advanced by filing, drilling, and trimming, in order to adapt them to the shapes of the knife handles and to fasten them thereto, I think the United Slates has failed to show that the goods are anything more than the material from which parts of pocketknives may be manufactured. This conclusion is strengthened by the decisions in Re John Russell Cutlery Co., 56 Fed. 221, Worthington v. Robbins, 139 U. S. 341, 11 Sup. Ct. 581, and U. S. v. Simon, 84 Fed. 154. The decision of the board of general appraisers is affirmed.

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

TOWNSEND, District Judge.

The articles in question are strips of pearl, commercially known as “pearl scales” or “stock pearl,” classified for duty at 5 cents apiece, as “parts of knives, wholly or partly manufactured,” under paragraph 153 of the act of 1897. The importer protests, claiming that the articles are dutiable at 35 per cent, ad valorem, under paragraph 450 of said act, as “manufactures of mother-of-pearl, not specially provided for.” It is agreed that they are not raw material, but manufactured articles. The question presented is whether they are parts of knives. On behalf of the United States it is urged that inasmuch as in some cases they are shipped, in accordance with orders, in certain sizes, and inasmuch as their chief use is for knife handles, they are parts [643]*643of knives, partly manufactured, under tbe decisions in Magone v. Wiederer, 159 U. S. 555, 16 Sup. Ct. 122, In re Blumenthal, 51 Fed. 76, and U. S. v. Simon, 84 Fed. 154. It further appears, however, that the articles in question are the cheapest quality of pearl, are sometimes sold by the pound and in all sizes a.nd shapes, and. are used on fans and opera glasses, for inlaying work, and for the handles of button hooks, corkscrews, and other articles. And inasmuch as in their present condition they are not necessarily a part of a knife handle, and would not necessarily be recognized as such, and are not in such a condition as to be part of the knife without being further advanced by filing, drilling, and trimming, in order to adapt them to the shapes of the knife handles and to fasten them thereto, I think the United Slates has failed to show that the goods are anything more than the material from which parts of pocketknives may be manufactured. This conclusion is strengthened by the decisions in Re John Russell Cutlery Co., 56 Fed. 221, Worthington v. Robbins, 139 U. S. 341, 11 Sup. Ct. 581, and U. S. v. Simon, 84 Fed. 154. The decision of the board of general appraisers is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 F. 642, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3088, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-united-states-exp-co-circtsdny-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack