Legal Opinion · Dissent

Stone v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided March 5, 1934No. 3673Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION

Bland and Lenroot, Judges,

dissenting in part: We are in accord with the majority as to classification of the communion rail and the base for the same. The low part of the altar rail was classified by the collector as free of duty. The part of the communion rail involved here and its base is a part of the whole communion rail imported, and the whole thing should be regarded as an entirety.

We find ourselves very much in disagreement with the conclusions of the majority as to the so-called “throne”, and feel compelled to state, as briefly as possible, the grounds of such…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Benziger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
  2. Benziger Bros. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  3. United States v. Buffalo Society of Natural SciencesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API