Wilbur M. Gaskins and Mrs. Bernice Gaskins v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Wilbur M. Gaskins and Mrs. Bernice Gaskins v. United States

381 F.2d 729, 20 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5577, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5846

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 26, 1967

Docket24247_1

StatusPublished

This text of 381 F.2d 729 (Wilbur M. Gaskins and Mrs. Bernice Gaskins 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

Wilbur M. Gaskins and Mrs. Bernice Gaskins v. United States, 381 F.2d 729, 20 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5577, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5846 (5th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court, in this suit for refund of income taxes, directed a verdict for the United States when, it concluded that all the evidence demanded a negative answer to the question: “Was there an oral agreement between Mr. Gaskins and Mr. Barrantine which provided. * * * (1) That Mr. Barrantine had both the right and the obligation to cut an amount of timber agreed upon between the par *730 ties?” The parties agreed in effect, by a pretrial stipulation, that the jury must find that the oral agreement included this provision in order for the appellants-taxpayers to recover.

We agree with the trial court that the evidence demanded a negative answer to this interrogatory. Thus the trial court did not err in directing a verdict for the United States.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court, in this suit for refund of income taxes, directed a verdict for the United States when, it concluded that all the evidence demanded a negative answer to the question: “Was there an oral agreement between Mr. Gaskins and Mr. Barrantine which provided. * * * (1) That Mr. Barrantine had both the right and the obligation to cut an amount of timber agreed upon between the par *730 ties?” The parties agreed in effect, by a pretrial stipulation, that the jury must find that the oral agreement included this provision in order for the appellants-taxpayers to recover.

We agree with the trial court that the evidence demanded a negative answer to this interrogatory. Thus the trial court did not err in directing a verdict for the United States.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

381 F.2d 729, 20 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5577, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilbur-m-gaskins-and-mrs-bernice-gaskins-v-united-states-ca5-1967.