Robertson v. Glendenning
Citations
- 132 U.S. 158
- 10 S. Ct. 44
- 33 L. Ed. 298
- 1889 U.S. LEXIS 1854
Syllabus
<p>When an article is designated in a tariff act by a specific name, and a duty imposed upon it by such name, general terms in a later part of the same act, although sufficiently broad to comprehend such article, are not applicable to it.</p> <p>Under the act of March 3, 1883, 22 Stat. 489, embroidered linen handkerchiefs are subject to a duty of thirty-five per cent ad valorem as “handkerchiefs ; ” and not to thirty per cent ad valorem as “ embroideries.”</p>
Judges: Fuller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
14 cases in this archive cite this case.
- United States v. PerrySupreme Court· 1892-11-07· cited 28×
- Brown v. United StatesCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1915-12-06· cited 28×
- United States v. La MannaCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1926-05-08· cited 16×
- Seeberger v. CahnSupreme Court· 1880-11-17· cited 11×
- United States v. HaakerCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1913-11-11· cited 10×
- Ahmann v. United Air Lines, Inc.Eighth Circuit· 1963-02-06· cited 10×
- Wilson v. United StatesCustoms and Patent Appeals· 1915-05-21· cited 8×
- Seeberger v. CahnSupreme Court· 1890-11-17· cited 2×
- United States v. Davies, Turner & Co.First Circuit· 1910-03-04· cited 2×
- United States v. GuntherSeventh Circuit· 1896-01-06· cited 2×
- Carter, Webster & Co. v. United StatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maryland· 1905-03-17· cited 1×
- Unnamed caseEighth Circuit· 1963-02-06
- Benziger Bros. v. United StatesU.S. Customs Court· 1950-01-04
- United States v. Quong Lee & Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California· 1909-08-06
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.