Legal Opinion · Dissent

Field v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided February 29, 1932No. 3489Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION

GaRREtt, Judge:

I respectfully dissent from the views of the majority in this case, because of my belief that the stitching upon the handkerchiefs involved does not constitute embroidery as that term has been uniformly defined in a long line of decisions rendered by this and other courts.

It is quite true that the words “whether or not the embroidery is on a scalloped edge” are new to the Tariff Act of 1930, but their inclusion therein, without more, should not be taken to mean a change by Congress in the definition of embroidery so often declared in adjudications. Wherever…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States v. Field & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1920
  2. Sloane v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1917
  3. Kayser & Co. v. PevnyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926

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

Powered by the Exa API