Case Name: SILZ v. UNITED STATES
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1910-02-08
Citations: 178 F. 273
Docket Number: No. 132 (5,188. 5,191)
Parties: SILZ v. UNITED STATES.
Judges: Before LACOMBF and WARD, Circuit Judges, and ADAMS, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 178
Pages: 273–273

Head Matter:
SILZ v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
February 8, 1910.)
No. 132 (5,188. 5,191).
Customs Duties (§ 30 ) — Classification—‘‘Poultry’’—Turkeys—Guinea Fowl — “Birds and Land Fowls.”
Guinea fowl and turkeys, that are not shown to be in fact wild birds, are more appropriately classified as “poultry,” under Tariff Act July 24, 1897. c. 11, § 1, Schedule G. par. 278. 30 Stat. 172 (TT. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1052), rather than as “birds and land ⅜ ⅜ * fowls” under section 2, Free List, par. 494, 30 Stat. I'.Ki (IT. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1081).
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Customs Duties, Dee. Dig. § 30.
For other definitions, see Words and Mirases, vol. 6, p. 5470; vol. 1, p. 803.]
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
For decision below, see 167 Fed. 686.
The Circuit Court affirmed decisions by the Board of United States General Appraisers, which had affirmed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York. The importations in controversy consisted of turkeys and guinea fowl. The importers contended that they had been improperly classified as “poultry,” under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule G, par. 278, 30 Stat. 172 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1652), on the ground that they were within the provision for “birds and land * * * fowls,” in section 2, Free List, par. 494, 30 Stat. 196 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1681).
D. Macon Webster, for appellant.
D. Frank Lloyd, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Before LACOMBF and WARD, Circuit Judges, and ADAMS, District Judge.
For other eases see same topic & § stumphr in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rop’r Indexes

Opinion:
PKR CURT AM.
We think there was not sufficient evidence to establish the proposition that the particular turkeys and guinea fowl imported were in fact wild birds. It may be that enough can be shown as to conditions in Italy, the country from which they come, to warrant such conclusion; but on the record here the decision is affirmed.