Zinn v. United States

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

Zinn v. United States

71 F. 952, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2517

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

DecidedJanuary 3, 1896

DocketNo. 1,742

StatusPublished

This text of 71 F. 952 (Zinn 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

Zinn v. United States, 71 F. 952, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2517 (circtsdny 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

WHEELER, District Judge.

This merchandise apparently consists of thin and narrow strips of wood fiber, plaited into sheets of about 24x18 inches, and was assessed as chip under paragraph 460 of the tariff act of 1890. The protest sets it forth as free, under paragraph 711: “Sparterre, suitable for making or ornamenting hats.” It does not appear to come within the common definition of this word, which appears to include only such a manufacture of a kind of Spanish grass; and the evidence does not show that it has ever acquired that name in the trade and commerce of this country, but, rather, that it has not, although it may have that name in Germany, from whence this importation came; and it does not show at all clearly that it is suitable for either making or ornamenting hats. The protest must therefore be overruled. Judgment affirmed.

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

WHEELER, District Judge.

This merchandise apparently consists of thin and narrow strips of wood fiber, plaited into sheets of about 24x18 inches, and was assessed as chip under paragraph 460 of the tariff act of 1890. The protest sets it forth as free, under paragraph 711: “Sparterre, suitable for making or ornamenting hats.” It does not appear to come within the common definition of this word, which appears to include only such a manufacture of a kind of Spanish grass; and the evidence does not show that it has ever acquired that name in the trade and commerce of this country, but, rather, that it has not, although it may have that name in Germany, from whence this importation came; and it does not show at all clearly that it is suitable for either making or ornamenting hats. The protest must therefore be overruled. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 F. 952, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zinn-v-united-states-circtsdny-1896.