Wilson v. United States

Second Circuit

Wilson v. United States

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

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedFebruary 2, 1906

DocketNo. 112

StatusPublished

This text of 146 F. 64 (Wilson v. United States) 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 F. 64, 76 C.C.A. 515, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4081, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-united-states-ca2-1906.