Root v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Root v. United States

85 F.2d 612, 18 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 478, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 4195

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 1, 1936

DocketNo. 7560

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 85 F.2d 612 (Root v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Root v. United States, 85 F.2d 612, 18 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 478, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 4195 (5th Cir. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

FOSTER, Circuit Judge.

This'is the second appeal in this case. It is a suit by the United States to recover against principal and surety on a bond given to prevent collection by distraint of income taxes against C. M. Root. The defense is that collection of the taxes was barred by limitation; that the bond was exacted by duress; and that it was without consideration. On the first trial in the District Court there was judgment for Root and the surety company. That judgment was reversed on the former appeal. U. S. v. Root (C.C.A.) 62 F.(2d) 385. The facts are fully reviewed in the opinion in that case and need not be repeated. Our former decision became the law of the case and on the new trial the District Court was obliged to follow it. Subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court support our previous ruling. See McDonnell v. U. S., 288 U.S. 420, 53 S.Ct. 410, 77 L.Ed. 869; Helvering v. Newport Co., 291 U.S. 485, 54 S.Ct. 480, 78 L.Ed. 929.

The appeal presents nothing new that is material.

Affirmed.

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

FOSTER, Circuit Judge.

This'is the second appeal in this case. It is a suit by the United States to recover against principal and surety on a bond given to prevent collection by distraint of income taxes against C. M. Root. The defense is that collection of the taxes was barred by limitation; that the bond was exacted by duress; and that it was without consideration. On the first trial in the District Court there was judgment for Root and the surety company. That judgment was reversed on the former appeal. U. S. v. Root (C.C.A.) 62 F.(2d) 385. The facts are fully reviewed in the opinion in that case and need not be repeated. Our former decision became the law of the case and on the new trial the District Court was obliged to follow it. Subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court support our previous ruling. See McDonnell v. U. S., 288 U.S. 420, 53 S.Ct. 410, 77 L.Ed. 869; Helvering v. Newport Co., 291 U.S. 485, 54 S.Ct. 480, 78 L.Ed. 929.

The appeal presents nothing new that is material.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 F.2d 612, 18 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 478, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 4195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/root-v-united-states-ca5-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack