Wolff v. United States

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

Wolff v. United States

113 F. 1001, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4830

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1902

DocketNo. 2,800

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 113 F. 1001 (Wolff v. United States) 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

Wolff v. United States, 113 F. 1001, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4830 (circtsdny 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

COXE, District Judge

(orally). The importations in question consist of mohair braids made of the hair of the Angora goat. The importers insist that they were properly dutiable under paragraph 286 of the act of 1894. They were imported February 12, 1894, and withdrawn for consumption in October, 1894, the act of 1894 in the meantime having gone into effect. The collector assessed them for duty under the act of 1890, and refused to give the importer the benefit of the reductions of the act of 1894, upon the ground that the importations were manufactures of wool, as to which the reduction Was suspended until January 1, 1895, by paragraph 297 of said act of 1894. Upon the evidence before the board their conclusion was correct; but since that decision evidence has been taken in this court which proves beyond question that the importations were as above stated, and were not wool. The decision of the board must be reversed within the doctrine of U. S. v. Klumpp, 169 U. S. 209, 18 Sup. Ct. 311, 42 L. Ed. 720, and Oppenheimer v. U. S. (C. C.) 90 Fed. 796.

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

COXE, District Judge

(orally). The importations in question consist of mohair braids made of the hair of the Angora goat. The importers insist that they were properly dutiable under paragraph 286 of the act of 1894. They were imported February 12, 1894, and withdrawn for consumption in October, 1894, the act of 1894 in the meantime having gone into effect. The collector assessed them for duty under the act of 1890, and refused to give the importer the benefit of the reductions of the act of 1894, upon the ground that the importations were manufactures of wool, as to which the reduction Was suspended until January 1, 1895, by paragraph 297 of said act of 1894. Upon the evidence before the board their conclusion was correct; but since that decision evidence has been taken in this court which proves beyond question that the importations were as above stated, and were not wool. The decision of the board must be reversed within the doctrine of U. S. v. Klumpp, 169 U. S. 209, 18 Sup. Ct. 311, 42 L. Ed. 720, and Oppenheimer v. U. S. (C. C.) 90 Fed. 796.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 F. 1001, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolff-v-united-states-circtsdny-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack