Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

66 F. 724

In re Merck

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided April 26, 1894.)

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1894-04-26

<p>Customs Duties — Classification—Chloral Hydrate.</p> <p>U. S. v. Battle & Co. Chemists’ Corp., 4 C. C. A. 249, 54 Fed. 141, followed.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1979

2 counsel of record

Relies on United States v. Battle · Appeal of Battle & Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1894-04-26

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Customs Duties — Classification—Chloral Hydrate.

¶2U. S. v. Battle & Co. Chemists’ Corp., 4 C. C. A. 249, 54 Fed. 141, followed.

¶3This was an application by Merck & Co., importers of chloral hydrate, for a review of the decision of the board of general appraisers sustaining the decision of the collector of the port of Hew York as to the rate of duty on said merchandise.

¶4Everit Brown, for importers..

¶5James T. Van Rensselaer, Asst. U. S. Atty., for collector.

¶6COXE, District Judge.

¶7The questions involved in this appeal have all been determined in the Case of Battle & Co., 50 Fed. 402, affirmed 4 C. C. A. 249, 54 Fed. 141. There is some testimony here which was not present in the Battle Case, but the new evidence is cumulative in character and does not change in any degree the character of the propositions decided. I am clearly of the opinion that the decision of the court of appeals of the Eighth circuit should be followed by this court. The decision of the board is reversed.

/66/f1d/724 · .json · Public domain