# United States v. Vandegrift & Co.

> Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 26, 1922 · 11 Ct. Cust. 333

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6828149

## Case

- **Full name:** United States v. Vandegrift & Co.
- **Court:** Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
- **Decided:** May 26, 1922
- **Citations:** 11 Ct. Cust. 333; 1922 CCPA LEXIS 31
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Barber
- **Judges:** Agreement, Barber, Counsel, Martin, Smith, Vries
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6828149

## Opinion text

CONCURRING OPINION.
Barber, Judge:
I concur in the foregoing opinion, but think it should be noticed that it results in limiting the views expressed in Beuttell & Sons v. United States ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 409 at 420 ; T. D. 37666), wherein, in language of which I was the author, it was said without qualification that Axminster rugs in the statute were “regarded as properly classifiable with the most valuable rugs, such as Oriental, Aubusson, and Berlin.”
The logic of the instant case is to modify the quoted statement in effect by saying that certain Axminster rugs were so regarded.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6828149. Public record. Not legal advice.