Gill v. Austin

157 F. 234, 84 C.C.A. 677, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4808
CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit
DecidedNovember 21, 1907
DocketNo. 662
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 157 F. 234 (Gill v. Austin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gill v. Austin, 157 F. 234, 84 C.C.A. 677, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4808 (1st Cir. 1907).

Opinion

PUTNAM, Circuit Judge.

This writ of error involves the same question of statutory construction with reference to the war revenue tax on legacies which was passed on adversely to the United States by the Circuit Court of Appeals in the Second Circuit in Eidman v. Tilghman, 136 Fed. 141, 69 C. C. A. 139, decided on February 24, 1905. It is true there is another question involved here, whether or not the legacy on which the tax was assessed ever became effectual; but that we can pass by. Eidman v. Tilghman was affirmed by a divided court in 203 U. S. 580, 27 Sup. Ct. 779, 51 L. Ed. 326. It is also said that the same question was decided against the United States by the Circuit Courts of Appeals for the Third Circuit (McCoach v. Philadelphia Trust, Safe Deposit & Ins. Co., 142 Fed. 120)1 and the Seventh Circuit (United States v. Marion Trust Co., 143 Fed. 301, 74 C. C. A. 439); also by a divided court in McCoach v. Norris, 205 U. S. 539, 27 Sup. [235]*235Ct. 793, 51 L. Ed. 921. Inasmuch as all these decisions were against the United States, we have not had occasion to verify what is claimed with reference to those in the Third and Seventh Circuits. The judgment of the Circuit Court now brought before us for review was in harmony with the result in Eidman v. Tilghman. Under the circumstances, it seems of no advantage for us to express any opinion, and, perhaps, it would be presuming for us to do so. It is enough that we refer to our practice, as stated many times, with reference to our disposition to follow decisions of the Circuit Courts of Appeals in other circuits whenever they can form a precedent. In accordance with that practice, we hold that the United States cannot prevail.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

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

Related

Ball v. Chapman
1 F.2d 895 (Seventh Circuit, 1924)
Thacher v. Inhabitants of Town of Falmouth
241 F. 869 (First Circuit, 1917)
Harmon v. United States
223 F. 425 (First Circuit, 1915)
Gill v. Parrish
168 F. 1020 (First Circuit, 1909)
United States v. Andersen
169 F. 201 (D. Idaho, 1909)
Kinney v. Conant
166 F. 720 (First Circuit, 1909)
United States v. F. A. Marsily & Co.
165 F. 186 (First Circuit, 1908)
Westhus v. Union Trust Co. of St. Louis
164 F. 795 (Eighth Circuit, 1908)
Conant v. Kinney
162 F. 581 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
157 F. 234, 84 C.C.A. 677, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gill-v-austin-ca1-1907.