Strausky v. Erhardt
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
At Law. Motion for a direction of a verdict. Granted. Maurice Strausky & Co. imported into the port of New York, in January, February, and March, 1890, certain steel kitchen utensils, hollow in form, glazed or enameled, blue and white, which he put upon the market, in his trade circulars, as “Strausky’s Steel Ware.”
Read the full summary
At Law. Motion for a direction of a verdict. Granted. Maurice Strausky & Co. imported into the port of New York, in January, February, and March, 1890, certain steel kitchen utensils, hollow in form, glazed or enameled, blue and white, which he put upon the market, in his trade circulars, as “Strausky’s Steel Ware.” The collector classified them under Schedule C of the act of March 3, 1883, as manufactures of steel, etc., (paragraph 216,) and assessed duties thereon at 45 per centum ad valorem. The importers protested and brought suit claiming the merchandise to be dutiable at 3 cents per…
1Opinion of the Court
Lacombe, Circuit Judge,
(orally.) Upon examination of the prior acts, I am satisfied that congress was of the understanding that “hollow ware” meant vessels of this general kind, which we have here, made of cast iron. For the reason, therefore, that there seems to have been a congressional meaning given to the words “hollow ware,” and embodied in statutes before the passage of the act of 1883, I assume that congress intended to use the words with the same meaning in the later act that it did in the prior act. Verdict directed in favor of the defendant.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Sittig v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1913