History
  • No items yet
midpage
United States v. Straus
168 F. 569
U.S. Circuit Court for the Dis...
1909
Check Treatment
LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

I concur in what seems to be the unconstrained opinion of the Board of General Appraisers, namely, that the addition of this colored glaze to the earthenware has “decorated” it within the meaning of the statute, although but a single color is shown. Indeed, it wóuld seem upon the proofs to be a reasonable conclusion that the earthenware is “stained,” although the stain is in the glaze, not in the substructure. Evidently the word “stained” has no special trade meaning. I do not concur, however, in the final conclusion of the board that they are constrained by former decisions of the courts to hold that the importations are “plain.” Neither Koscherak v. U. S., 98 Fed. 596, 39 C. C. A. 166, nor U. S. v. Thurnauer, 159 Fed. 122, 86 C. C. A. 86, requires such a holding.

The decision is reversed.

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Straus
Court Name: U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
Date Published: Mar 16, 1909
Citation: 168 F. 569
Docket Number: No. 5,084
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.