# U. H. Dudley & Co. v. United States

> District Court, S.D. New York · July 18, 1906 · 148 F. 333

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8761926

## Case

- **Full name:** U. H. DUDLEY & CO. v. UNITED STATES PAUL TAYLOR BROWN CO. v. SAME
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. New York
- **Decided:** July 18, 1906
- **Citations:** 148 F. 333; 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4975
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Wheeler
- **Judges:** Wheeler
- **Cited by:** 1 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/8761926

## Opinion text

WHEELER, District Judge.
The question here is whether these pineapples are “preserved in their own juice,” as protested, or in sugar as classified under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule G, par. 263, 30 Stat. 171 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1651]. ' The opinion of the board shows clearly that sugar was used as a preservative in putting up these goods, and the evidence taken in this court does not make it appear otherwise. The decision of Judge Platt [Johnson v. U. S. (C. C.) 143 Fed. 839 ], as to preserved pineapples, would be controlling if the findings or results of the evidence were the same, but they do not appear to be. It is said that pineapples cannot be preserved in their own juices, and that therefore there is strictly no such thing as pineapples preserved in their own juices to which this provision of the act can apply. But, if that is so, the articles must fall elsewhere, and these protests cannot be sustained.
Decisions affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8761926. Public record. Not legal advice.