Legal Opinion

Whitlock Cordage Co. v. Untied States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided March 27, 1926No. 2610PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHatfield, Judge

The merchandise involved in this appeal is rope-making machinery, and consists of a "breaker card,” a “third and finishing drawing frame,” a "regulating gill spinning frame,” a “24 spindle patented twister, ” and parts for them.

The breaker card and the regulating gill spinning frame were described in the invoice as preparing machinery and entered as "Machinery,” not specially provided for. The drawing frame was *657described in the invoice as "textile machinery,” and entered as “Machinery” not specially provided for. The 24 spindle patented twister was described in the invoice and entered as…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Kayser & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  2. Kayser & Co. v. PevnyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. A. W. Fenton Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1955
  2. Graemiger Bros. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1944
  3. Broderick & Bascom Rope Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972
  4. Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1932
  5. Liberty Lace & Netting Works v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1945

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API