Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. United States
286 F. 135, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 340, 2 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1824, 1923 U.S. App. LEXIS 2702
Opinion
It appearing that the excise tax for which recovery was had herein (Act Aug. 5, 1909, c. 6, § 38, 36 Stat. 112) itself drew interest (Billings v. United States, 232 U. S. 261, 284, et seq., 34 Sup. Ct. 421, 58 L. Ed. 596), and that its inclusion in the recovery was thus proper, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. United States, 286 F. 135, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 340, 2 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1824, 1923 U.S. App. LEXIS 2702 (6th Cir. 1923).
286 F. 135 (Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Billings v. United States
232 U.S. 261 (Supreme Court, 1914)