Legal Opinion

American Bead Co. v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided May 23, 1916No. 1601; No. 1619PublishedCited by 12 opinions

Applications for rehearing, decision in 1601 rendered March 9, 1916 (7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 18; T. D. 36259); and that in 1619, March 28,1916 (7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 156; ' T. D. 36463).

1Per curiam

The case of H. Wolff & Co. v. United States, supra, having been decided by citation only of earlier decisions of the court deemed precisely controlling, and a petition for reargument having been filed, the court deems more extended observations appropriate. That .petition for rehearing lays particular stress upon the appraiser’s report upon the protest, wherein it is stated that the articles “are in the opinion of this office commercially known as jewelry.” This is followed by the claim of the Government that this was a finding by the appraiser which was binding upon the Board of General…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Maddock v. MagoneSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  2. Swan v. ArthurSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
  3. American Bead Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916
  4. Loewenthal v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
  5. Walden v. Bodley's HeirsSupreme Court of the United States · 1850

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. United States v. Imperial Wall Paper Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  2. United States v. European Watch & Clock Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1922
  3. General Wool Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  4. United States v. Mandel Bros.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1920
  5. Hamrah Bros. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1921

7 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