Case law

D. & B. Import Corp. v. United States

29 C.C.P.A. 65 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 5, 1941

Cole & Co. et al. v. United States, 27 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 201, C. A. D. 85; Louis Wolf & Co. v. United States, 27 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 188, C. A. D. 84; E. J. Burke, Ltd. v. United States, 26 C. C. P. A. … Church v. Hubbart, 2 Cranch 187 . In the case of Factor v. Laubenheimer, 290 U.

Amtorg Trading Corporation v. United States

71 F.2d 524 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 26, 1934

The corporation has a board of seven directors, which are elected at meetings in the New York office. Bogdanov, as the trustee for the stock, is able to, and does, select these directors. … Bank of Kentucky v. Wister, 2 Pet. 318, 324 , 7 L. Ed. 437 ; Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, 11 Pet. 257, 326 , 9 L. Ed. 709 ; Moore v. Board of Trustees, 7 Ind. 462 ; Bank of U. S. v. Planters’ Bank, 9 Wheat. 904 , 6 L.

Champion Coated Paper Co. v. United States

24 C.C.P.A. 83 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 17, 1936

Under such rules as the Board of General Appraisers may prescribe, and in its discretion, a protest may be amended at any time prior to the first docket call thereof. Sec. 521. … Justice Lamar, in United States v. Sherman & Sons Company, 237 U. S. 146 , 152: 1.

United States v. International Forwarding Co.

18 C.C.P.A. 60 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1930

United States v. Raunheim, 17 C.C. P.A. 425, T. D. 43867. … Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States, 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 389 , T.

United States v. Little Joe Wiesenfeld Co.

32 C.C.P.A. 83 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 30, 1944

We reversed the judgment of the board as to the saddle girths and stirrup leathers, but affirmed as to all the *86 other merchandise. … D. 163; California v. San Pablo & Tulare Railroad Co., 149 U. S. 308, 314 ; Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651, 653 .

Curtis & Von Bernuth Mfg. Co. v. United States

22 C.C.P.A. 651 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 25, 1935

See Steinhardt & Bro. v. United States, 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 372 , T. D. 37629; United States v. Linen Thread Co., 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 369 , T. D. 41257; Louisville Bedding Co. v. United States, 14 Ct. Cust. … See United States v. Macy & Co., 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 8 , T. D. 36256; Western Blind & Screen Co. v. United States, 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 68 , T. D. 39942; United States v. Dodge, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 222 , T.

Wanamaker v. United States

17 C.C.P.A. 251 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 28, 1929

The jig-saw puzzle is a picture which has been mounted on a board made of paper and wood and then cut by a jig saw into small irregular figures, and the solution of the puzzle consists in arranging these small pieces in their … The record in that case was before us in the case of United States v. Louis Wolf & Co. (decided at this term), and it amply sustains the finding of the court that the jig-saw puzzles there in question were toys.

Atalanta Trading Corp. v. United States

42 C.C.P.A. 90 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 21, 1954

Frog legs seem to have long been the subject of administrative and judicial interpretation. 1 The United States Customs Court, as well as its predecessor, the Board of General Appraisers, have consistently held frog legs … Ingersoll v. United States, T. D. 11566, G. A. 741; Myers v. United States, T. D. 26190, Abstract 5410; Pacific Trading Co. v. United States, 4 Cust. Ct. 251 , C. D. 335; Pacific Trading Co. v. United States, 17 Cust.

Kotzin Bros. v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 99 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 1, 1926

The Board of General Appraisers, in an opinion by Fischer, G. … Mason v. Robertson, 139 U. S. 624 ; Smith & Co. v. United States, 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 40 , T. D. 34008; Stone & Co. v. United States, 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 124 , T. D. 36453.

Bolinders Co. v. United States

28 C.C.P.A. 40 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 6, 1940

In the case of Finsilver, Still & Moss v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 332 , T. … In the case of Gresham v. United States, 27 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 106, C. A.

United States v. Twin Wintons

535 F.2d 636 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 10, 1976

Anderson Organization v. United States, 46 CCPA 47, C.A.D. 694 (1958); United States v. Hirschberg, 42 CCPA 61, C.A.D. 571 (1954). See also McGrath v. Manufacturers Trust Co., 338 U.S. 241, 249 (1949); Kelley v. … United States v. Oakville Co., 56 CCPA 1, 8, C.A.D. 943, 402 F. 2d 1016, 1021 (1968).

United States v. Bartiromo

9 Ct. Cust. 183 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 18, 1919

United States v. Cohn & Rosenberger ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 273 ; T. D. 32571); United States v. Goldberg’s Sons et als. ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 282 , T. D. 32573); Guthman, Solomons & Co. v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. … within the term “beads” in paragraph 333, we are confronted by the inquiry, are they classifiable within the phrase “ coral, * * * cut but not set, and suitable for use in the manufacture of jewelry,” supra, as held by the board

F. W. Woolworth Co. v. United States

115 F.2d 348 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 8, 1940

Another case involving countervailing duty is that of V. Mueller & Co. v. … D. 36426; United States v. Hills Bros. Co., 2 Cir., 107 F. 107 ; United States v. Passavant, 169 U.S. 16 , 18 S.Ct. 219 , 42 L.Ed. 644 .

United States v. University of Chicago Press

23 C.C.P.A. 38 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1935

The only pertinent case which has been cited is Weber & Co. v. United States, T. D. 13343, which arose under the tariff act of October 1, 1890. … A case which is somewhat helpful here is Petry Co. v. United States, 5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 524, T. D. 35174.

Aktiengesellschaft Fur Feinmechanik Vormals Jetter & Scheerer v. Kny-Scheerer Corp.

86 F.2d 132 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 9, 1936

Any party desiring to appeal to this court from a decision of the Board of Appeals or the Commissioner of Patents shall file in the clerk’s office a petition, addressed to the court, in which he shall briefly set forth and … is accompanied by an affidavit of counsel which states, in substance, that this is a case remanded to the Patent Office by this court (presumably the case of Aktiengesellschaft Fur Feinmechanik, Vormals Jetter & Scheerer v.

Kelly v. United States

17 C.C.P.A. 30 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 2, 1929

Thirty years ago the Board of General Appraisers (now United States Customs Court), in the case of H. S. Folger v. United States, T. D. 21670, G. A. 4575, held, in an opinion by Somerville, G. … La Manna, Azema & Farnan v. United States, 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 289 , T. D. 41908; Lamont, Corliss & Co. et al. v. United States, 16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 488 , T. D. 43224.

United States v. Hensel

18 C.C.P.A. 297 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 19, 1930

See Lazarus v. United States, 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 508, 500 , T. D. 32247; United States v. Downing, 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 545 , T. … United States v. Brown & Co., 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 3 ; United States v. Basket Imp. Co., 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 98 ; United States v. Beierele, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 457 ; Shallus v. United Stales, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 556 .

Nelson v. Campbell

92 F.2d 974 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 6, 1937

Hatfield, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This is an, appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of' the United States Patent Office affirming the decision of the Examiner of Interferences awarding priority … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Andrew J. McPartland, Inc. v. Montgomery Ward & Co.

164 F.2d 603 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 29, 1947

Trainer, 101 U.S. 51, 54 , 25 L.Ed. 993 ; Manhattan Medicine Co. v. Wood, 108 U.S. 218, 222 , 2 S.Ct. 436 , 27 L.Ed. 706 ; Goodyear’s India Rubber Glove Mfg. Co. v. … Co. v. Tennessee Mfg. Co., 138 U.S. 537, 547 , 11 S.Ct. 396 , 34 L.Ed. 997 ; Brown Chemical Co. v. Meyer, 139 U.S. 540 , 11 S. Ct. 625 , 35 L.Ed. 247 ; Elgin National Watch Co. v.

United States v. Canadian Vinyl Industries, Inc.

555 F.2d 806 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 12, 1977

United States v. American Brown Boveri Electric Corp., 17 CCPA 329, T.D. 43776 (1929). … Co. v. United States, 58 CCPA 45, C.A.D. 1002, 433 F. 2d 1340 (1970); C. J. Tower & Sons v. United States, 41 CCPA 195, C.A.D. 550 (1954); Yardley & Co. v. United States, 41 CCPA 85, C.A.D. 533 (1953).