Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

United States v. Davison

9 F.2d 1022

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1926-01-05
Topic
general

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge. In the court below, the collector of internal revenue brought suit against George S. Davison for income tax Which the said collector claimed was due and owing by him. On entry of judgment in favor of Davison, the government sued out this writ of error. Davison iwas a stockholder of the Gulf Oil Corporation, and his alleged taxable income came to *1023 him in the same way as that of his fellow stockholder, W.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Davison. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
4 opinions
UNITED STATES v. DAVISON,9 F.2d 1022(3rd Cir. 1926)
UNITED STATES, by C.G. LEWELLYN, Collector of Internal Revenue, Plaintiff
in Error, v. George S. DAVISON, Defendant in Error.
No. 3338.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
January 5, 1926.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania; W.H.S. Thomson, Judge.

For opinion below, see1 F.2d 465.
John D. Meyer, of Pittsburgh, Pa., and A.W. Gregg and A. Calder Mackay, both of Washington, D.C., for plaintiff in error.

H.L. Stone, Jr., and John G. Frazer, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant in error.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
In the court below, the collector of internal revenue brought suit against George S. Davison for income tax which the said collector claimed was due and owing by him. On entry of judgment in favor of Davison, the government sued out this writ of error. Davison was a stockholder of the Gulf Oil Corporation, and his alleged taxable income came toPage 1023him in the same way as that of his fellow stockholder, W.L. Mellon, whose case was before decided by the court below. 279 F. 910, affirmed by this court, 281 F. 645. Following these cases, the trial judge held that the collector could not recover the income tax from Davison. By an oversight, the attempted review by the Supreme Court of the Mellon Case miscarried, and this present action was brought to eventually secure a review by that court of the question involved in the Mellon Case. It has been sought to differentiate the Davison from the Mellon Case, but we regard them as involving the same question.

Adhering, as we do, to our decision in the latter case, we are of opinion the court below committed no error in following it, and its judgment is therefore affirmed.Page 1