TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Roche v. United States

Roche v. United States, 116 F. 911 (1902)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Historical Federal Courts
Decided
May 13, 1902
Docket
No. 2,978
Judges
Lacombe
Citations
116 F. 9111902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5051
Headnotes
1. Taeiet Duties—Pickled Limes. Pickled limes, not being vegetables, are not dutiable under Tariff Act 1897, par. 241, providing for all vegetables, including pickles; nor are they exempt under paragraph 559, providing for fruits, green, ripe, or dried, and fruits in brine, not specifically provided for; but are dutiable under paragraph 266, providing for oranges, lemons, limes, grape fruit, shaddocks, or pomelos.
Summary
Appeal by James W. Roche from a decision of the board of United States general appraisers, which affirmed the decision of the collector of customs at the port of New York. The following is the opinion of the board of general appraisers in Re Thompson, which was followed by the board in the case at bar: The goods are pickled limes. They were assessed for duty at 40 per cent., under paragraph 241, Act 1897, and are claimed to be exempt from duty under paragraph 559. Paragraph 241 provides for “all vegetables, prepared or preserved, including pickles and sauces.” Paragraph 559 reads: “Fruits or berries, green, ripe, or dried, and fruits in brine, not specially provided for in this act.” Limes are not vegetables, and limes preserved in brine are not known as pickles. Between the two paragraphs the importer’s claim would be well founded, but paragraph 266 provides for “oranges, lemons, limes, grape fruit, shaddocks or pomelos, one cent per pound.” This is a more specific designation than that in paragraph 559, for fruits, green, ripe, dried, Or in brine, not specially provided for. We hold that the goods were dutiable under paragraph 266, and the protest, therefore, must be overruled.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Lacombe

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The decision of the board of general appraisers is affirmed, for the reason that paragraph 559 of the tariff act of 1897 is expressly not applicable to fruits specially provided for in the act, and, on the contrary, paragraph 266 is not qualified by any such language.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1904: 11905: 119042026peak 1904 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Brennan v. United States136 F. 743 (1st Cir. 1905)
  2. Brennan v. United States129 F. 837 (1904)

Most recent

  1. Brennan v. United States136 F. 743 (1st Cir. 1905)
  2. Brennan v. United States129 F. 837 (1904)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list