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
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided January 26, 1931·No. No. 412·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

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.

Mr. Sidney P. Simpson, with whom Messrs. A. C. Rearick and Theodore B. Benson were on the brief, for petitioner. Assistant Attorney General Rugg, with whom Solicitor General Thacher and: Messrs. Claude R. Branch, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Lisle A. Smith, Bradley B. Gilman, and Erwin N. Griswold were on the brief, for the United States.

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)