J. C. Pushee & Sons v. United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.. ’' In describing the property in dispute, the judge at circuit stated that it consisted of bristles in small bunches, with a string tied around the ends of' each bunch to hold them together; that in these bunches the butt ends and the flag ends are not mixed indiscriminately, but substantially all the butt ends lie together; and that they are in a partial state of preparation for the…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.. ’' In describing the property in dispute, the judge at circuit stated that it consisted of bristles in small bunches, with a string tied around the ends of' each bunch to hold them together; that in these bunches the butt ends and the flag ends are not mixed indiscriminately, but substantially all the butt ends lie together; and that they are in a partial state of preparation for the brush-maker.
1Opinion of the Court
PUTNAM, Circuit Judge.
This is 'a question of classification under the tariff act of 1897. It depends on the application of paragraph 411 (Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule N, 30 Stat. 190 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1673]), as follows; “Bristles, sorted, bunched of prepared, seven and one-half cents per pound,” and of paragraph 509 (sectipn 2, Free List, 30 Stat. 196 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1682]), as follows: “Bristles, crude, not sorted, bunched, or prepared.” Paragraph 509 is in the free list.
There is no proof of any special commercial use of the word “bunched” in this connection;…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- The ColumbianCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1900
3Cited by3 opinions
- San Francisco Radio & Supply Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1956
- United States v. WagmanCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1945
- Wagman v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1945