Wilson v. United States

Second Circuit

Wilson v. United States

146 F. 64, 76 C.C.A. 515, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4081

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided February 2, 1906·No. No. 112·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Board returns that the “merchandise consists of napkins or cloths woven in the piece, composed of cotton table damask.” The relevant paragraph (Tariff Act July .24, 1897, c. II, § 1, Schedule I, 30 Stat. 179 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 16(51]), is “(321). Cotton table damask, forty per centum.” The record is wholly barren of any testimony as to trade meaning of these words, and the common and popular meaning is certainly broad enough to cover the merchandise in question. Whether, as suggested on the argument, it also includes individual napkins and tablecloths cut off from the piece is a question not presented by this record, since the importer does not seek to review the Board’s classification of the individual articles under the countable cotton clauses; therefore, we express no opinion thereon. Certainly, the phrase “cotton table damask” is more specific than the various countable cotton provisions.

Decision affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The Board returns that the “merchandise consists of napkins or cloths woven in the piece, composed of cotton table damask.” The relevant paragraph (Tariff Act July .24, 1897, c. II, § 1, Schedule I, 30 Stat. 179 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 16(51]), is “(321). Cotton table damask, forty per centum.” The record is wholly barren of any testimony as to trade meaning of these words, and the common and popular meaning is certainly broad enough to cover the merchandise in question. Whether, as suggested on the argument, it also includes individual napkins and tablecloths cut off from the piece is a question not presented by this record, since the importer does not seek to review the Board’s classification of the individual articles under the countable cotton clauses; therefore, we express no opinion thereon. Certainly, the phrase “cotton table damask” is more specific than the various countable cotton provisions.

Decision affirmed.

Wilson v. United States, 146 F. 64, 76 C.C.A. 515, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4081 (2d Cir. 1906).

Pincite

146 F. 64 (Wilson v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.