Whitlock Cordage Co. v. Untied States
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
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
- Kayser & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
- Kayser & Co. v. PevnyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
3Cited by26 opinions
- A. W. Fenton Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1955
- Graemiger Bros. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1944
- Broderick & Bascom Rope Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1972
- Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1932
- Liberty Lace & Netting Works v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1945
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.