Legal Opinion · Dissent

United States v. Sheldon

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided June 22, 1926No. 2684Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION

Barber, Judge:

I dissent.

The long-established and well-settled rule is that—

When Congress has designated an article by a specific name, and by such name imposed a duty upon it, general terms in a subsequent act, or in a later part of the same act, although sufficiently broad to comprehend such article, are not applicable to it. Arthur v. Lahey, 96 U. S. 112; Vietor v. Arthur, 104 U. S. 498.

The main opinion recognizes this rule but rejects it, for the purposes of this case, with no justification therefor that I can discover. Of course, if Congress has, in a given statute,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Magone v. HellerSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  2. Chew Hing Lung v. WiseSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
  3. Arthur v. LaheySupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  4. Brown v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
  5. Vietor v. ArthurSupreme Court of the United States · 1881

5 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