UNITED STATES V. ECKSTEIN, 222 U. S. 130 (1911)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 222 U. S. 130
Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/222/130/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/222/130/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. Eckstein, 222 U.S. 130 (1911)
United States v. Eckstein
No. 52
Argued November 10, 1911
Decided December 4, 1911
222 U.S. 130
Syllabus
Section 7 of the Dingley Tariff Act of June 24, 1897, c. 11, 30 Stat. 159, known as the similitude clause, does not require that there shall be similarity of material, quality, texture, and use in all four particulars, but a substantial similarity in one particular may be adequate to classify an article thereunder.
Imitation horsehair was properly classified under the similitude clause with cotton yarn enumerated in paragraph 302 of the Tariff Act instead of with silk yarn under paragraph 385, there being a substantial similitude with the former both as to material and use, even if not as to quality or texture.
167 F.8d 2 affirmed.
The facts, which involve the correct classification, under the Tariff Act of 1897 of artificial horsehair, are stated in the opinion.