Legal Opinion

Whelan v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided April 17, 1958No. C. D. 1982Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part 1

CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART OPINION

2Concurring in part, dissenting in part · FordFord, Judge

I concur in the majority holding that the merchandise in the above-stated case is not a manufacture of wood and quote the following from Tide Water Oil Co. v. United States, 171 U. S. 210, 43 L. ed. 139, in support of that conclusion:

The primary meaning of the word “manufacture” is something made by hand, as distinguished from a natural growth; but as machinery has largely supplanted this primitive method, the word is now ordinarily used to denote an article upon the material of which labor has been expended to make the finished product.…

3Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Tide Water Oil Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
  2. United States v. MacyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916
  3. Whelan v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1955

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

Powered by the Exa API