Legal Opinion

United States v. Von Oefele

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided February 12, 1913No. 1042PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Appeal from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 29825 (T. D. 32830).

1Opinion of the CourtBarber, Judge

There is no claim here that the merchandise under consideration is not correctly described by the importer and the Government chemist, both of whom were witnesses before the Board of General Appraisers.

The importer testified in substance that it came from Germany; that it was volcanic earth, dug out of the ground; that before being dug it was sandy, clammy, sticky earth, covered by earth above it; that when taken out and laid in the air it became dry; that it was then put through a grinding mill, and in the resulting condition, with nothing added thereto, was imported; that in such condition…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Fink v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
  2. United States v. StraussCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1912
  3. United States v. Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1897
  4. United States v. StraussCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1912

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Reichard Coulston, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1944
  2. Alltransport, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1956
  3. Reichard Coulston, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1946

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API