United States v. Vandegrift
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Appeal from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 25910 (T. D. 31708).
1Opinion of the CourtBarber, Judge
The merchandise involved here was stated in the return of the appraiser to be a manufacture of wool and rubber. In the answer to the protest it was described as waterproof cloth used in the manu*162facture of ladies’ raincoats composed of wool, cotton, and rubber. The Government analyst reported it to be cloth consisting of cotton in the warp, wool in the filling with vulcanized rubber composition in coating, and rubber in chief value.
No evidence was taken before the board, and the report of the analyst is, in effect, conceded to be correct by both parties.
The board found the merchandise to be a…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hartranft v. MeyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Solomon v. ArthurSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Brody v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911
3Cited by11 opinions
- Loewenthal v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
- Kenyon Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1913
- United States v. Snow's United States Sample Express Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1915
- Goat & Sheepskin Import Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1914
- Bough v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.