Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

PIERCE v. UNITED STATES (NO. 2), 232 U.S. 292 (1914)

232 U.S. 292

Type: Opinion
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1914-02-24
Topic: general

PIERCE v. UNITED STATES (NO. 2), 232 U.S. 292 (1914) PIERCE v. UNITED STATES (NO. 2).UNITED STATES v. PIERCE. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OFNEW YORK.CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed PIERCE v. UNITED STATES (NO. 2), 232 U.S. 292 (1914). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

PIERCEv. UNITED STATES (NO. 2),232 U.S. 292(1914)

PIERCEv. UNITED STATES (NO. 2).

UNITED STATESv. PIERCE.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF

NEW YORK.

CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.

Nos. 65, 624.

Argued January 6, 7, 1914.

Decided February 24, 1914.

Decided on authority ofPiercev.United States, ante, p. 290. 190 F. 359, reversed.

THE facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. William D. Guthriefor the yacht owner in this and other cases argued simultaneously herewith.¹Mr. Assistant Attorney General Adkins, with whomMr. KarlW. Kirchweywas on the brief, for the United States.²

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the court.

These cases concern the right to recover a tax on the yacht Yacona, becoming due on the first of September, 1910. The complaint filed by the United States in No. 65 was in substance like that filed in the previous cases and the answer in effect set up the same defenses, especially the defense relating to the non-use of the yacht. The case, by stipulation, was submitted to the court without a jury, a finding of facts was made which distinctly establishedPage 293the non-use during the taxing year and the court gave a judgment for the tax, although it rejected the interest, upon the same construction of the act which it applied in the previous cases. The certificate in this as in the other cases is here in consequence of error prosecuted by the United States to the Circuit Court of Appeals, because of the rejection of the interest claimed. Treating this case as we treated the others and applying the construction in those cases given, it follows that the judgment in this case must be reversed.And it is so ordered.

Page 292 See argument, p. 263,ante. ↩
Page 292 See argument, p. 269,ante. ↩