Legal Opinion

Ball v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided May 21, 1917No. 1783PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Appeal from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7965 (T. D. 36699). [Oral argument Apr. 26,1917, by Mr. Levett and Mr. Hanson.] •

1Opinion of the Court

Barber, Judge,

delivered tbe opinion, of tbe court:

Tbe importations in tbis case are made of steel. Tbeir method of manufacture is stated by a competent witness as follows:

The steel is first cast into square ingots. These square ingots are rolled into round solid blooms.' These blooms are cut up into short lengths,’ and the short lengths are pierced under- a steam hammer, which expands but does not lengthen them. They are then heated up again and rolled in the same type of mill as you would roll solid bars, over a cast-iron plug. ’ After the first rolling they are pickled and ground to remove…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Tide Water Oil Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
  2. United States v. RichterCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911
  3. Page v. United StatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1902

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Davis-Bilt Products Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1952
  2. Watson v. York Metal & Alloys Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  3. United States v. Downing & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
  4. Carr v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1921
  5. Wilkes-Barre Lace Mfg. Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1923

9 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