Bullock v. Latham

Second Circuit

Bullock v. Latham

339 F.2d 605

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Bullock v. Latham. Read the opinion of the Court — 306 F.2d 45 →

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided December 23, 1964·No. No. 256, Docket 28976·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

When this case was here before we held that there was jurisdiction under 28 U. S.C. §§ 1340 and 2463 and remanded for trial on the sole issue “whether title to-the machinery and fixtures is in Giles E. Bullock or E. C. Brown Company.” Bullock v. Latham, 306 F.2d 45, 48 (2d Cir. 1962). This task was thoroughly and', competently performed by the District. Court Judge, who ruled against the taxpayers. We affirm on the basis of his-, findings of fact and conclusions of law.

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

PER CURIAM.

When this case was here before we held that there was jurisdiction under 28 U. S.C. §§ 1340 and 2463 and remanded for trial on the sole issue “whether title to-the machinery and fixtures is in Giles E. Bullock or E. C. Brown Company.” Bullock v. Latham, 306 F.2d 45, 48 (2d Cir. 1962). This task was thoroughly and', competently performed by the District. Court Judge, who ruled against the taxpayers. We affirm on the basis of his-, findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Bullock v. Latham, 339 F.2d 605 (2d Cir. 1964).

Pincite

339 F.2d 605 (Bullock v. Latham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related