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
This text of 286 F. 135 (Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
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).
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
Related
Billings v. United States
232 U.S. 261 (Supreme Court, 1914)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
286 F. 135, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 340, 2 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1824, 1923 U.S. App. LEXIS 2702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cleveland-c-c-st-l-ry-co-v-united-states-ca6-1923.