Legal Opinion

United States v. Mulhens

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided November 18, 1913No. 1152PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Apreal from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7441 (T. D. 83241).

1Opinion of the CourtBarber, Judge

Two different kinds of merchandise are involved in this case. One, an empty glass bottle covered on the outside with willow strands, sometimes referred to as wicker, closely woven around the bottle and tightly drawn, so that none of the glass is visible except about one-half inch at the top. The bottle can not be withdrawn from the willow without destroying or unweaving it. A representative sample of this merchandise is before us. No sample of the other is presented, but it is agreed that it is like the one mentioned, except that it has a metal top. In each case the merchandise was returned…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States v. Zinn & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1912
  2. Hempstead v. United StatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1909
  3. Woodruff v. United StatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1909

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Hensel v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
  2. Morimura Bros v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1917
  3. United States v. SassiCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1925
  4. Protest 952457-G of Ore & Chemical Corp.United States Customs Court · 1939
  5. Protests 36018-K of Advertising Corp. of AmericaUnited States Customs Court · 1944

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

Powered by the Exa API