Legal Opinion

United States v. Tower & Sons

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided April 1, 1919No. 1937PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Appeal from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 42482. [Oral argument Jan. 15, 1919, by Mr. Hanson and Mr. Tompkins.]

1Opinion of the CourtDe Vries, Judge

Tungstic acid, produced in the United States, was exported to Canada in the condition of an impalpable yellow powder. The *136purpose of the exportation was to use the article in the manufacture of tungsten wire for incandescent lamp fillings. The processes applied in Canada are several. It is first dissolved in ammonia and the resultant insoluble materials filtered out. This rejected.material is called an “insoluble residue” and consists of small lumps of clay-like material said to contain tungsten, lime, and other impurities. This is one of the substances imported and the'subject of this…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States v. Maine Central RailroadCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916
  2. United States v. Rubelli's SonsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1918
  3. United States v. SaundersCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1917

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Amity Fabrics, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1959
  2. Burgess Battery Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1944
  3. Air Carrier Supply Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1955
  4. Shell Oil Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1939
  5. A. N. Deringer, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1975

6 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