Grandin v. Heiner

Third Circuit

Grandin v. Heiner

56 F.2d 1082, 10 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1490, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 2911, 1932 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 9158, 10 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 1490

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 17, 1932

DocketNo. 4649

StatusPublished

This text of 56 F.2d 1082 (Grandin v. Heiner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Grandin v. Heiner, 56 F.2d 1082, 10 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1490, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 2911, 1932 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 9158, 10 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 1490 (3d Cir. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This ease was here before. Our opinion disposing of it at that time was published in 44 F.(2d) 141.

After this ease was argued, the Supreme Court handed down opinions in the cases of Chase National Bank v. United States, 278 U. S. 327, 49 S. Ct. 126, 73 L. Ed. 405, 63 A. L. R. 388, and Reinecke v. Northern Trust Company, 278 U. S. 339, 49 S. Ct. 123, 73 L. Ed. 410, 66 A. L. R. 397. Counsel for the government and the taxpayer in this case have different views as to the application of the principles, announced in those eases, to the facts in this case. A re-argument was granted. But after further consideration, we think that the ease was correctly decided in our previous opinion reversing the judgment of the District Court and granting a new trial, which is accordingly ordered.

Amended Opinion.

It appears that in the per curiam opinion filed in this case on March 17, 1932, the court was under the impression that the ease was then being considered on a reargument of the first appeal rather than on an argument of the second appeal. This mistake was apparently due to the fact that the appellee’s brief is entitled “Brief for Appellee on Re-argument” and to the further fact that the argument was in substance a reargument of the questions decided on the first appeal.

As stated in the opinion filed, we think that the case was correctly decided on the first appeal and that our decision [44 F.(2d) 141], is not inconsistent with the principles announced in the cases of Chase National Bank v. United States, 278 U. S. 327, 49 S. Ct. 126, 73 L. Ed. 405, 63 A. L. R. 388, and Reinecke v. Northern Trust Company, 278 U. S. 339, 49 S. Ct. 123, 73 L. Ed. 410, 66 A. L. R. 397.

The order, therefore, directing a new trial is vacated and set aside, and the judgment in this second appeal, which was entered in accordance with our. decision on the first appeal, is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This ease was here before. Our opinion disposing of it at that time was published in 44 F.(2d) 141.

After this ease was argued, the Supreme Court handed down opinions in the cases of Chase National Bank v. United States, 278 U. S. 327, 49 S. Ct. 126, 73 L. Ed. 405, 63 A. L. R. 388, and Reinecke v. Northern Trust Company, 278 U. S. 339, 49 S. Ct. 123, 73 L. Ed. 410, 66 A. L. R. 397. Counsel for the government and the taxpayer in this case have different views as to the application of the principles, announced in those eases, to the facts in this case. A re-argument was granted. But after further consideration, we think that the ease was correctly decided in our previous opinion reversing the judgment of the District Court and granting a new trial, which is accordingly ordered.

Amended Opinion.

It appears that in the per curiam opinion filed in this case on March 17, 1932, the court was under the impression that the ease was then being considered on a reargument of the first appeal rather than on an argument of the second appeal. This mistake was apparently due to the fact that the appellee’s brief is entitled “Brief for Appellee on Re-argument” and to the further fact that the argument was in substance a reargument of the questions decided on the first appeal.

As stated in the opinion filed, we think that the case was correctly decided on the first appeal and that our decision [44 F.(2d) 141], is not inconsistent with the principles announced in the cases of Chase National Bank v. United States, 278 U. S. 327, 49 S. Ct. 126, 73 L. Ed. 405, 63 A. L. R. 388, and Reinecke v. Northern Trust Company, 278 U. S. 339, 49 S. Ct. 123, 73 L. Ed. 410, 66 A. L. R. 397.

The order, therefore, directing a new trial is vacated and set aside, and the judgment in this second appeal, which was entered in accordance with our. decision on the first appeal, is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 F.2d 1082, 10 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1490, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 2911, 1932 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 9158, 10 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 1490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grandin-v-heiner-ca3-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack