Hempstead v. United States
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania
On Application for Review of a Decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers. For decision below, see G. A. 6,626 (T. D. 28,255), in which the Board of General Appraisers affirmed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Philadelphia. Note Woodruff v. U. S. (C. C.) 168 Fed. 452.
1Opinion of the Court
J. B. McPPIFRSON, District Judge.
It is agreed by counsel that the merchandise in question (which is known in the trade as “Buhl furniture”) is fairly represented by a sample that was produced in court at the argument. This sample is undoubtedly a piece of house or cabinet furniture. It is a table, somewhat ornate in design, whose framework and principal bulk are of wood, while its decoration consists partly of paint, and partly of brass work either inlaid or affixed. The importers conceded that the brass work was the component material of chief value; and, apparently giving controlling weight…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- United States v. DudleySupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Gallenkamp v. RachmanU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1906
3Cited by4 opinions
- Blumenthal & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1914
- United States v. MulhensCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1913
- Woodruff v. United StatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1909
- United States v. O. G. Hempstead & SonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1910