Case law

United States v. Siegfried Lowenthal Co.

31 C.C.P.A. 19 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1943

Shaw & Co. v. United States, 39 Treas. Dec. 179 , T. D. 38664, G. … The court also cited the case of Casazza & Bro. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 627 , T.

United States v. Hawley

17 C.C.P.A. 110 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 12, 1929

such boarding officers shall be allowed extra compensation for services in boarding vessels at night or on Sundays or holidays at the rates prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury as herein provided, the said extra compensation … The cases of Mellon v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Sainte Marie Railway Co., 285 Fed. 980 , and Mellon v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Sainte Marie Railway Co., 11 Fed. [2d] 332, and Mellon v.

United States v. F. W. Woolworth Co.

22 C.C.P.A. 184 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 12, 1934

Under the doctrine announced by this court in its decision affirming the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers (now the United States Customs Court) in the case of United States v. Richard & Co., 14 Ct. Cust. … In view of the above-cited cases of Robertson v. Frank Bros. Co. and United States v.

Fischer v. United States

38 C.C.P.A. 143 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 22, 1951

Aspden v. Nixon, 45 U. S. 466 , 4 How. 467 ; Miles v. Caldwell, 69 U. S. (2 Wall.) 35 ; Case v. Beauregard, 101 U. S. 688 ; Deposit Bank v. Frankfort, 191 U. S. 499 ; Wilson v. Deen, 121 U. S. 525 . … Weeks v. Bridgman, 159 U. S. 541, 547 ; Ramsey v. Crevlin, 254 F. 813, 817 ; Brown v. Brown, 50 N. H. 538, 552; Kinney v. Lundy, 89 P. 496, 498 , 11 Ariz. 75, 80 ; Way v. Root, 140 N. W. 577, 579 , 174 Mich. 418 .

United States v. Schade

16 Ct. Cust. 366 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 19, 1928

Maddock v. Magone, 152 U. S. 368'. … The cases of Brown & Co. v. United States, 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 415 , T. D. 35977, and those therein referred to, have been cited by counsel in support of the contention that the involved merchandise is fish.

United States v. Titan Shipping Co.

25 C.C.P.A. 403 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 28, 1938

of General Appraisers [now the United States Customs Court] to a board of three genera! … Johnson Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 373 , T. D. 41318.

J. L. Hopkins & Co. v. United States

34 C.C.P.A. 67 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 4, 1946

Schanzenbach & Co. v. United States, T. … As imported, some of the material was green in color and some brown. The witness stated that the age of the leaf *69 determined tbe color of tbe powder. In using it tbe colors are sometimes mixed or blended.

Application of Hansen

183 F.2d 92 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 30, 1950

As in Hall v. … See also Kenyon v. Crane, 120 F. 2d 380 , 28 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1208; Lawson v. Davis, 129 F.2d 873 , 29 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1217.

M. Martinez & Co. v. United States

24 C.C.P.A. 285 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1936

In our decision it was recited that the United States Board of General Appraisers (now the United States Customs Court) on *293 November 27, 1922, decided the case of Gerrard Wire Tying Machines Co. v. United States, T. … In the petition for rehearing appellants urge, in effect, that the foregoing is in contravention of our declaration in the case of United Stales v. Bassichis Co. et al., 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 410 , T.

United States v. Caesar

18 C.C.P.A. 106 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 19, 1930

They, in the main, are decisions by the Board of General Appraisers and no one of them appears to be on all fo'urs with the case at bar. … It was there said: The Board has found that these tidies are ornamentally worked by hand with a needle and thread, and this constitutes embroidery.

David L. Moss & Co. v. United States

30 C.C.P.A. 1 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 27, 1942

The sample of unfermented dried egg albumen is crystalline in form, of reddish-brown color, and is practically odorless. … Shallus & Co. et al. v. United States, 18 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 332, T. D. 44585, merchandise similar to that here involved was held to be dutiable as dried egg albumen under paragraph 713 of the Tariff Act of 1922.

Braren v. Horner

49 F.2d 9841 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 27, 1931

In this connection, the following authorities are thought to be in point: Guarantee Company, etc. v. Phenix Ins. Co., 124 Fed. 170 ; *1410 Rogers v. Penobscot Mining Co., 154 Fed. 606 ; Smart v. … Wright, 227 Fed. 84 ; Millward v. Vulcan Furnace, etc., 26 F. (2d) 78.

Levi v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 447 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 2, 1917

D. 35475) and Wilson & Son v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 255 ; T. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

United States v. Kachurin Drug Co.

39 C.C.P.A. 36 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 5, 1951

See Cassett v. United States, 2 Cust. Ct. Appls. 465, T. D. 32225. See Roche-Organon, Inc. v. United States, 35 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 99, C. A. D. 378; United States v. Judson Sheldon Corp., 33 C. C. P. A. … D. 318; Sherka Chemical Co., Inc. v. United States, 33 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 53, C. A. D. 316; G. D. Searle & Co. v. United States, 21 Cust. Ct. 112 , C. D. 1138.

United States v. Malhame & Co.

25 C.C.P.A. 423 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 7, 1938

Stewart Brown, United States Customs Court, First Division. Dated at New York, N. Y., this the 25th day of August 1937. … Stewart Brown, Judge. New York, N. Y., Sept. 18, 1987.

Thomas v. United States

19 C.C.P.A. 277 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 17, 1931

may, upon the motion of either party made within thirty days next after such decision, grant a rehearing or retrial of said case when, in the opinion of said board or said general appraiser the ends of justice so require … Draeger Shipping Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 419 , T. D. 41341. See also Monroe-Goldkamp Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 545 , T. D. 41429; Bache & Co. v. United States, 6 Ct. Cust.

Matter of the Application of Eugene M. Chmiel and Walter C. O'Leary

262 F.2d 81 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 13, 1959

This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the Patent Office affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 to 9 and 21 to 28, the only remaining claims in appellants’ application, serial No. 327,171, … The court cited with approval an excerpt from Hillard v.

Bangor & Aroostook Railroad v. United States

20 C.C.P.A. 96 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1932

On the authority of the decisions of this court in the cases of United States v. Swift & Co., supra, and Pacific Guano & Fertilizer Co. v. United States, 15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 218 , T. … *100 However, that pronouncement has been modified by the decisions of this court in United States v. Swift & Co., supra; Pacific Guano & Fertilizer Co. v. United States, supra; Wilbur-Ellis Co. et al. v.

Richard Shipping Corp. v. United States

17 C.C.P.A. 417 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 6, 1930

D. 41956, and Thompson-Starrett Co. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 37 , T. D. 39979. … With reference to the decisions of this court in Thompson-Starrett Co. v. United States, and United States v.

United States v. F. W. Woolworth Co.

22 C.C.P.A. 134 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 21, 1934

The case of Kenyon Co. v. United States, 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 344 , T.D. 33529, is cited by counsel for appellee in support of that proposition. … In the case of United States v. Bernard, Judae & Co., 15 Ct. Cust.