Legal Opinion

Birtwell v. Saltonstall

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts

Decided August 6, 1889PublishedCited by 11 opinions

At Law. Action by Joseph Birtwell against Leverett Saltonstall, collector of the port of Boston, to recover duties improperly collected.

1Opinion of the CourtColt, J.

The plaintiff in this case imported from Antwerp the ironwork for the foundation or frame of the floor in the third story of the new court-house in Boston. Each piece of iron was manufactured, fitted, punched, and shaped for its special place in the floor frame. The defendant exacted a duty of II cents per pound upon all of this iron, under that provision of schedule C, of the act of March 3, 1883, which provides as follows:

“Iron or steel beams, girders, joists, angles, channels, ear-truck channels, TT, columns, and posts, or parts or sections of columns and posts, deck and bulb beams, and…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Badger v. RanlettSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
  2. Tyre & Spring Works Co. v. SpaldingSupreme Court of the United States · 1886

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. United States v. FrankCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  2. United States v. Henry L. Exstein Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  3. Saltonstall, Collector of Customs v. BirtwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  4. Soule v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1929
  5. Winkler-Koch Engineering Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1953

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