United States v. Eckstein,
222 U.S. 130 (1911)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

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


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. 802 affirmed.

The facts, which involve the correct classification, under the Tariff Act of 1897 of artificial horsehair, are stated in the opinion.

Page 222 U. S. 133

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.