Heckett Engineering, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Third Circuit

Heckett Engineering, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

173 F.2d 572, 37 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1173, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 4511

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 1, 1949

DocketNo. 9803

StatusPublished

This text of 173 F.2d 572 (Heckett Engineering, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) 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

Heckett Engineering, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 173 F.2d 572, 37 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1173, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 4511 (3d Cir. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The only questions raised by the petitioner in this case are whether the Tax Court erred in finding as a fact that petitioner had acquired from Hollapd Engineering Company a contract between that company and E. H. Heckett giving the company, its successors and assigns, the right to the free use of Heckett’s patents and whether the court erred in , refusing to grant petitioner’s motion for rehearing so as to permit the introduction of additional, but not after-discovered, evidence on. this point. Our examination of the record satisfies us that the Tax Court’s finding in question was not clearly erroneous and that the Court’s refusal to' grant a rehearing did not constitute reversible error.

Accordingly the decision of the Tax Court will be affirmed

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

PER CURIAM.

The only questions raised by the petitioner in this case are whether the Tax Court erred in finding as a fact that petitioner had acquired from Hollapd Engineering Company a contract between that company and E. H. Heckett giving the company, its successors and assigns, the right to the free use of Heckett’s patents and whether the court erred in , refusing to grant petitioner’s motion for rehearing so as to permit the introduction of additional, but not after-discovered, evidence on. this point. Our examination of the record satisfies us that the Tax Court’s finding in question was not clearly erroneous and that the Court’s refusal to' grant a rehearing did not constitute reversible error.

Accordingly the decision of the Tax Court will be affirmed

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 F.2d 572, 37 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1173, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 4511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heckett-engineering-inc-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca3-1949.