TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Thomas v. Wanamaker

THOMAS, Collector of Customs v. WANAMAKER

Thomas v. Wanamaker, 129 F. 92 (3d Cir. 1904)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
February 17, 1904
Docket
No. 33
Judges
Dallas
Citations
129 F. 9263 C.C.A. 5941904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4020
Syllabus
1. Customs Duties — Classification—Dress Goods — Embroidered Woolen Articles — Wearing Apparel. Held, that so-called wool “dress robes” or “dress patterns,” consisting of women’s dress goods of wool, embroidered with silk, imported in single patterns in separate lengths and pieces, each pattern comprising the material for the body and trimming of a dress, are “dress goods,” and are dutiable under the provision in paragraph 369, Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule K, 30 Stat. 184 [ü. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1667], for “women’s * * * dress goods * * * composed wholly or in part of wool,” which is limited by the expression “not specially provided for in this act,” and not under paragraph 371 of said act, c. 11, § 1, Schedule K, 30 Stat. 185 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1667], which provides, without such limitation, for “articles embroidered, * * * made of wool,” nor under paragraph 370 of said act, e. 11, § 1, Schedule K, 30 Stat. 184 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1667], relating to “articles of wearing apparel of every description, * * * manufactured * * * in part, * * * composed wholly or in part of wool.”
Summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This appeal was brought by C. Wesley Thomas, Collector of Customs at the port of Philadelphia, from an affirmance (123 Fed. 193), by the Circuit Court of two decisions of the Board of General Appraisers covering, importations by John Wanamaker, and reversing the assessment of duty.

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

Opinion of the Court — Dallas

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

DALLAS, Circuit Judge.

Nothing need be added to the opinion of the Board of Appraisers. We think it adequately supports the decision made by the board, and the decree of the Circuit Court sustaining that decision is therefore affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1904: 11905: 21906: 11913: 11915: 11916: 11919: 11943: 119042026peak 1905 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Drakenfeld & Co. v. United States9 Ct. Cust. 124 (C.C.P.A. 1919)
  2. Carter, Webster & Co. v. United States143 F. 256 (4th Cir. 1906)
  3. Hall v. United States136 F. 774 (2d Cir. 1905)
  4. United States v. Schwarz140 F. 302 (1905)
  5. Loewenthal v. United States6 Ct. Cust. 209 (C.C.P.A. 1915)
  6. Knauth v. United States4 Ct. Cust. 58 (C.C.P.A. 1913)

Most recent

  1. Stanley Doggett, Inc. v. United States10 Cust. Ct. 161 (Cust. Ct. 1943)
  2. Drakenfeld & Co. v. United States9 Ct. Cust. 124 (C.C.P.A. 1919)
  3. Bischoff v. United States7 Ct. Cust. 138 (C.C.P.A. 1916)
  4. Loewenthal v. United States6 Ct. Cust. 209 (C.C.P.A. 1915)
  5. Knauth v. United States4 Ct. Cust. 58 (C.C.P.A. 1913)
  6. Carter, Webster & Co. v. United States143 F. 256 (4th Cir. 1906)

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