Drexel v. United States

Court of Claims

Drexel v. United States

61 Ct. Cl. 216, 5 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 5702, 1925 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 340, 1926 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 7020, 1925 WL 2659

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedNovember 16, 1925

DocketNo. D-524

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 61 Ct. Cl. 216 (Drexel v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Drexel v. United States, 61 Ct. Cl. 216, 5 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 5702, 1925 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 340, 1926 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 7020, 1925 WL 2659 (cc 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Booth, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The facts of this case are stipulated. Plaintiff concedes that the case must be differentiated from the case of Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U.S. 161, if recovery is to obtain. It is difficult to perceive the distinction. As a matter of fact the Gavit case is so directly in point that we have no hesitancy in applying it here. In our opinion the issue is stare decisis, and nothing is left for us to do but dismiss the petition. We have not ignored the argument of counsel; on the contrary, we have given it most careful and deliberate attention. With it, however, we can not agree. Decisions of the Supreme Court determinative of an issue precisely the same as the case presented for our adjudication are manifestly conclusive, and it would serve no useful purpose for this court to repeat a discussion and argument which have been effectually closed in this way. Suffice it to say that we are firmly convinced that the Gavit case precludes a recovery herein. The petition is dismissed. It is so ordered.

Graham, Judge; Hay, Judge; Downey, Judge; and Campbell, Chief Justice, concur.

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

Booth, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The facts of this case are stipulated. Plaintiff concedes that the case must be differentiated from the case of Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U.S. 161, if recovery is to obtain. It is difficult to perceive the distinction. As a matter of fact the Gavit case is so directly in point that we have no hesitancy in applying it here. In our opinion the issue is stare decisis, and nothing is left for us to do but dismiss the petition. We have not ignored the argument of counsel; on the contrary, we have given it most careful and deliberate attention. With it, however, we can not agree. Decisions of the Supreme Court determinative of an issue precisely the same as the case presented for our adjudication are manifestly conclusive, and it would serve no useful purpose for this court to repeat a discussion and argument which have been effectually closed in this way. Suffice it to say that we are firmly convinced that the Gavit case precludes a recovery herein. The petition is dismissed. It is so ordered.

Graham, Judge; Hay, Judge; Downey, Judge; and Campbell, Chief Justice, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 Ct. Cl. 216, 5 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 5702, 1925 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 340, 1926 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 7020, 1925 WL 2659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drexel-v-united-states-cc-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack