Roy & Titcomb, Inc. v. United States
282 U.S. 811, 75 L. Ed. 727, 51 S. Ct. 197, 1931 U.S. LEXIS 930, 9 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 969
Opinion
Judgment affirmed.-,.,) (1) Stange v. United States, ante, p. 270; Aiken, Administratrix, v. Burnet, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, ante, p. 277; W. P. Brown & Sons Lumber Company v. Burnet, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, ante, p. 283; Burnet, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, v. Chicago Railway Equipment Co., ante, p. 295. (2) Graham v. Goodcell, ante, p. 409; Mascot Oil Com[812]*812pany, Inc., v. United States ante, p. 434.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Roy & Titcomb, Inc. v. United States, 282 U.S. 811, 75 L. Ed. 727, 51 S. Ct. 197, 1931 U.S. LEXIS 930, 9 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 969 (1931).
282 U.S. 811 (Roy & Titcomb, Inc. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Charlton Woolen Co. v. White
27 F. Supp. 371 (D. Massachusetts, 1939)