Zimmerman v. United States

S.D. New York

Zimmerman v. United States

61 F. 938, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2838

DecidedApril 18, 1894

StatusPublished

This text of 61 F. 938 (Zimmerman v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Zimmerman v. United States, 61 F. 938, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2838 (S.D.N.Y. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

TOWNSEND, District; Judge

(orally). It appears that, while the braids are exclusively used for making hats, yet they are cotton braids in fact, and are generally and commercially known as “cotton braids,” although they are also known as “cotton hat braids,” and a certain pattern is known as the “Belgrade pa Hern.” It seems to me that the construction contended for by the importer would nullify the operation of the statute (paragraph 518), by admitting braids suitable for making hats, irrespective of their composition,—whether of wire, paper, leather, or whalebone, for example',—and that therefore, this construction could not: hhve been intended by congress; and a further suggestion in support of this view seems to he afforded by the limiting clause (in paragraph 518), in which all “similar manufactures” are limited as to the material of which they are composed. I can see no reason why, if the limitation is applied to tin* general term “similar manufactures,” it should not; also be applied to tire braid, especially in view of the fact already suggested,—that the other view admits of .other materials, such as have been mentioned. The construction contended for hv the government seems to be further in harmony with the intention of congress as manifested by other acts, and in accordance with the construction applied by ihe courts in similar cases. I therefore think that the decision of the board of general appraisers should be affirmed. Decision affirmed.

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

TOWNSEND, District; Judge

(orally). It appears that, while the braids are exclusively used for making hats, yet they are cotton braids in fact, and are generally and commercially known as “cotton braids,” although they are also known as “cotton hat braids,” and a certain pattern is known as the “Belgrade pa Hern.” It seems to me that the construction contended for by the importer would nullify the operation of the statute (paragraph 518), by admitting braids suitable for making hats, irrespective of their composition,—whether of wire, paper, leather, or whalebone, for example',—and that therefore, this construction could not: hhve been intended by congress; and a further suggestion in support of this view seems to he afforded by the limiting clause (in paragraph 518), in which all “similar manufactures” are limited as to the material of which they are composed. I can see no reason why, if the limitation is applied to tin* general term “similar manufactures,” it should not; also be applied to tire braid, especially in view of the fact already suggested,—that the other view admits of .other materials, such as have been mentioned. The construction contended for hv the government seems to be further in harmony with the intention of congress as manifested by other acts, and in accordance with the construction applied by ihe courts in similar cases. I therefore think that the decision of the board of general appraisers should be affirmed. Decision affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 F. 938, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zimmerman-v-united-states-nysd-1894.