TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Butler Bros.

United States v. Butler Bros., 180 F. 1005 (1910)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois · Historical Federal Courts
Decided
May 27, 1910
Docket
No. 29,587 (2,080)
Judges
Carpenter
Citations
180 F. 10051910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5550
Headnotes
Customs Duties (§ 37*) — Classification—“Dolls”—Bath Babies — Position Babies. Bath babies and position babies are “dolls,” within the meaning of Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule N, par. 418, 30 Stat. 191 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1674), and are dutiable as such, rather than as china toys, under Schedule B, par. 95, 30 Stat. 156 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1633). [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Customs Duties, Dec. Dig. § 37.*]
Summary
On Application for Review of a Decision by the Board of United States General Appraisers. The Board of General Appraisers in the decision below sustained the importers’ protests against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Chicago. The assessment was under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedulé B, par. 95, while the importers contended for classification under Schedule N, par. 418, the pertinent provisions of which read as follows: “95. GEina * * * ware, including * * * toys * * * decorated or ornamented in any manner.” “418. Dolls, doll heads, toy marbles of whatever materials composed, and all other toys not composed of * * * china, * * * not specially provided for in this act.” The opinion filed by the Board of General Appraisers reads in part as follows: “HAY, General Appraiser. The appraiser returned the merchandise in question as ‘position babies’ and ‘bath babies.’ * * * The samples in the case at bar make it perfectly clear that the merchandise in question must be classified as dolls, to come under the toy paragraph, as they are composed of china or bisque, and toys composed of these materials are expressly excepted from the operation of that paragraph. From the testimony in the case, however, and an examination of the samples, we are convinced that the merchandise in question falls within the definition of the word ‘dolls.’ In the Century Dictionary it is said that a doll is a ‘puppet representing a child, usually a little girl (but also sometimes a boy or a man, as a soldier, etc.), used as a toy by children, especially by girls.’ The articles in question, we think, respond to this definition, and the testimony in the case at bar reinforces this conclusion. The protests are therefore sustained and the collector directed to reliquidate the entries accordingly.”

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

Opinion of the Court — Carpenter

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

CARPENTER, District Judge.

Decision affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1925: 11988: 119252026peak 1925 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Schmidt13 Ct. Cust. 252 (C.C.P.A. 1925)
  2. Hasbro Industries, Inc. v. United States703 F. Supp. 941 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1988)

Most recent

  1. Hasbro Industries, Inc. v. United States703 F. Supp. 941 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1988)
  2. United States v. Schmidt13 Ct. Cust. 252 (C.C.P.A. 1925)

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