Case law

Brown v. Barton

102 F.2d 193 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 6, 1939

The case pf Hull v. … Hull v. Davenport, supra.

Farnsworth v. Brown

124 F.2d 208 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 29, 1941

to Brown and Roberts upon certain counts involved in an interference declared by the Primary Examiner between a divisional application of Brown and Roberts and a patent issued to Farnsworth. … The Examiner of Interferences awarded Farnsworth priority as to count 2 and Brown and Roberts took no appeal from his decision. Priority as to all the remaining counts was awarded Brown *742 and.

Brown v. Edeler

110 F.2d 858 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 8, 1940

In the case of Severson v. … Therefore, the Mason v. Hepburn, supra, doctrine has no application here. *863 For the reasons stated herein, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

Brown v. Childs

120 F.2d 350 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 9, 1941

The Board of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Examiner of Interferences in all respects. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

United States v. Brown

46 C.C.P.A. 1 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 18, 1958

United States v. Brown & Co. et al., 10 Ct. Cust. Appls. 47 , T. D. 38295: Fish sounds, cut in half, washed and dried in the sun were-assessed as “prepared fish sounds.” … Brown and Co., 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 3 , T.

Brown v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 415 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 6, 1915

In Rich v. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

United States v. Brown

6 Ct. Cust. 382 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 19, 1915

The act of 1909 authorized a protest within 15 days after the liquidation, and prescribed subsequent proceedings before the Board of General Appraisers and an appeal to this court. … A case cited by importer’s counsel is Bechtel v. United States ( 101 U. S., 597 ).

Schuster v. Brown

69 F.2d 373 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 7, 1934

In his brief he states: In Robbins v. … Gowen v. Hendry et al., 17 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 789, 37 F. (2d) 426; Bbrogden v. Slater, supra.

United States v. Brown

2 Ct. Cust. 189 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 12, 1911

(Merwin v. Magone, 70 Fed. Rep., 776, 777, 778.) … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed'.

United States v. Brown

13 Ct. Cust. 3 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1925

This line of authority is well summed up in United States v. Brown, 10 Ct. Cust. Appls. 47 , T. … It must be assumed the Congress was fully cognizant of the decision of this court in United States v. Brown, supra.

Brown v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 309 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 2, 1916

No testimony was taken before the board. … The board overruled the protest of the importers and held that the goods were dutiable as assessed.

Brown v. Crile

52 C.C.P.A. 1835 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 23, 1964

United States v. Brown

4 Ct. Cust. 102 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 22, 1913

In this respect the case is precisely like that of United States v. Brown, supra. … See Chaffee v. United States ( 85 U. S., 516 , 539 et seq.). The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Brown v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 96 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 1, 1926

Schade & Co. v. United States, 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 465 , T. D. 35002; Neuman & Schwiers Co. et al. v. United States, 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 64 , T. D. 33310; Brown & Co. v. United States, 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 415 , T. … Nix v. Hedden 149 U. S. 304 . The judgment is affirmed.

Brown & Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 93 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 9, 1924

In United States v. … (Citing Prince v. United States, supra.) ' The case of the United States v. Brown & Roese ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 382 ; T. D. 35922) is directly in point in the decision of the case at bar.

United States v. Brown & Co.

10 Ct. Cust. 47 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 21, 1920

United States v. Salomon ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 246 ; T. D. 31277); Simpson v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 222 ; T. D. 31952); United States v. Maine Central Railroad Co. ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 114 ; T. D. 36427). … See also Andrews & Co. et al. v. United States ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls., 68 ; T. D. 37199).

Brown & Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 402 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 13, 1922

See Wing Yee Chong & Co. v. United States ( 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 329 ; T. D. 39142). The assessment of the additional tax of $1.10 per gallon is specifically challenged by the protest. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

United States v. Brown & Co.

9 Ct. Cust. 146 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1919

In fact, so far as appears from the board’s decision in that case, the article which the board there had under consideration was not subjected to the same treatment as that applied to the merchandise here in issue; that is … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is therefore reversed.

Brown & Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 26 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 17, 1923

Tower Manufacturing & Novelty Co. et al. v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 267 ; T. D. 35478). Also, there was a similar holding in National Hat Pin Co. v. United States ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 435 ; T. D. 34971). … ■The judgment' of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

United States v. Brown

6 Ct. Cust. 241 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 18, 1915

As appears froth the foregoing statement, the present issue is substantially identical with that just decided by this court in the case of United States v. … Reference is hereby made to that decision for a discussion of the issue, and in accordance with the views therein expressed the decision of the board in the present case is reversed, and the assessment is sustained.