Legal Opinion

Rossman v. United States

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided February 13, 1911No. 107; No. 108PublishedCited by 12 opinions

Transperred from United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York (T. D. 29613-T. D. 29673).

1Opinion of the CourtBarber, Judge

The merchandise involved in this importation is marble chips and waste of marble quarries and shops which, by the use of proper *281machinery for the purpose, has been crushed and screened, so that the resulting product is small pieces of marble of irregular shapes and different colors in three sizes. Before being subjected to these operations it is known as marble waste, and is practically worthless. Thereafter it takes the new and distinctive name of granito or terrazzo, is imported in bags, and is used in making so-called mosaic marble floors. These floors are made by sprinkling or scattering…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Hartranft v. WiegmannSupreme Court of the United States · 1887

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Ishimitsu v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1921
  2. Bayersdorfer v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1913
  3. Lang v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1913
  4. Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970
  5. Jackson v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1916

7 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