Bredt v. United States
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
At Law. Review of decision of board of United States general appraisers, under the act of June 10,1890. The assistant district attorney contended that the articles in paragraph 393, such as “blankets, hats of wool, and flannels for underwear,” were articles of wearing apparel, and the blankets therein specified referred to blankets to be worn or used for the covering of the person, and not to machinery; that machine blankets were not ejusdem generis (Hollender v. Magone, 149…
Read the full summary
At Law. Review of decision of board of United States general appraisers, under the act of June 10,1890. The assistant district attorney contended that the articles in paragraph 393, such as “blankets, hats of wool, and flannels for underwear,” were articles of wearing apparel, and the blankets therein specified referred to blankets to be worn or used for the covering of the person, and not to machinery; that machine blankets were not ejusdem generis (Hollender v. Magone, 149 U. S. 586, 589, 13 Sup. Ct. 932; Magone v. Trading Co., 6 C. C. A. 407, 57 Fed. 394), and constituted a part of the…
1Opinion of the Court
WHEELER, District Judge,
These articles are woven from wool into continuous webs for use in printing presses, as parts of the machinery, and in that aft, when so used, are called “blankets.” They were assessed under paragraph 392 of the tariff act of 1890, which provided for duties on “all manufactures of every description made wholly or in part of wool,” and are claimed to have been dutiable *497under paragraph 393, which provided for different duties “on blankets, hats of wool, and flannels for underwear, composed wholly or in part of wool.” Blankets, in general, are used as coverings for…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Robertson v. RosenthalSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
3Cited by1 opinion
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1959