Legal Opinion

Durbrow v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided January 22, 1923No. 2194PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBarber, Judge

The only question in this case is whether the three machines under consideration identified as Nos. 1, 11, and 23 should be classified as sewing machines under paragraph 441 or as embroidery machines under paragraph 165 of the tariff act of 1913.

Mr. Hearne, a witness connected with the importing firm who had been in the business of buying and importing machines some 25 or 30 years, and had qualified as an expert in patent cases involving sewing machines, testified as to the primary design and purpose of Exhibit 1 which is typical.

*447As I stated before, first to produce a chain'stitcli with a…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Durbrow & Hearne Manufacturing Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1919

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Clutsom Machines, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1948
  2. United-Carr Fastener Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1966
  3. Giddings & Lewis Machine Tool Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1968
  4. Fedtro, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970
  5. Hancock Gross, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970

2 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