Boston & P. R. v. Gill

D. Massachusetts

Boston & P. R. v. Gill

257 F. 221, 1 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1032, 1916 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1779

CourtDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts

DecidedSeptember 13, 1916

DocketNos. 263, 364, 519, 521-523, 583

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 257 F. 221 (Boston & P. R. v. Gill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boston & P. R. v. Gill, 257 F. 221, 1 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1032, 1916 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1779 (D. Mass. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

MORTON, District Judge.

The question whether the defendants are liable for interest on the taxes illegally assessed has been decided since these cases were argued in the plaintiffs’ favor. See opinion of Bingham, J., Old Colony R. R. Co. v. Gill, Collector (D. C. Mass., No. 259, June 28, 1916) 257 Fed. 220.

The only other question is whether the plaintiff in any of the cases is not entitled to interest because of lack of diligence in prosecuting its claim. All the plaintiffs were closely associated. The delay in pressing their claims was, for a considerable period, due to an understanding with the defendants that these claims should await the decision of other pending cases. As late as April 30, 1915, it was suggested, on behalf of the defendants, that two of these cases should “await the decision of cases involving similar questions now pending in other districts.” That suggestion was equally applicable to the other cases. Just when it became apparent to the parties that the question of interest could not be adjusted between them, and would have to be submitted to the court, is not clear. It must have been after the date referred to. Under such circumstances I do not think that the plaintiffs’ conduct has been such as to put them outside the usual rule.

Judgmentmay be entered in due course for the amounts agreed upon, with interest.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MORTON, District Judge.

The question whether the defendants are liable for interest on the taxes illegally assessed has been decided since these cases were argued in the plaintiffs’ favor. See opinion of Bingham, J., Old Colony R. R. Co. v. Gill, Collector (D. C. Mass., No. 259, June 28, 1916) 257 Fed. 220.

The only other question is whether the plaintiff in any of the cases is not entitled to interest because of lack of diligence in prosecuting its claim. All the plaintiffs were closely associated. The delay in pressing their claims was, for a considerable period, due to an understanding with the defendants that these claims should await the decision of other pending cases. As late as April 30, 1915, it was suggested, on behalf of the defendants, that two of these cases should “await the decision of cases involving similar questions now pending in other districts.” That suggestion was equally applicable to the other cases. Just when it became apparent to the parties that the question of interest could not be adjusted between them, and would have to be submitted to the court, is not clear. It must have been after the date referred to. Under such circumstances I do not think that the plaintiffs’ conduct has been such as to put them outside the usual rule.

Judgmentmay be entered in due course for the amounts agreed upon, with interest.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 F. 221, 1 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1032, 1916 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boston-p-r-v-gill-mad-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack