Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Baldwin v. Higgins

Baldwin v. Higgins, 100 F.2d 405 (2d Cir. 1938)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1938-12-05
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. This action seeks recovery of overpayment of income tax for the year 1932. By a compromise, a balance of tax díte was agreed upon and some payments made. A *406balance remaining unpaid, the taxpayer repudiated the agreement and sued to recover that which he had paid. The c'ase was tried without a jury.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Baldwin v. Higgins. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
2 opinions
BALDWIN v. HIGGINS,100 F.2d 405(2nd Cir. 1938)
BALDWIN v. HIGGINS.
No. 122.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
December 5, 1938.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

Action by Frank V. Baldwin against Joseph T. Higgins to recover income tax paid. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.
Richard Blaine Dawson, of New York City (Morris A. Schoenfeld, and Irvin T. Pollack, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Lamar Hardy, U.S. Atty., of New York City (Clarence W. Roberts, Asst. U.S. Atty., of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before MANTON, SWAN, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This action seeks recovery of overpayment of income tax for the year 1932. By a compromise, a balance of tax due was agreed upon and some payments made. APage 406balance remaining unpaid, the taxpayer repudiated the agreement and sued to recover that which he had paid. The case was tried without a jury. There are no findings of fact presented in this record. No rulings in the progress of the trial were excepted to at the time nor are they duly presented by the bill of exceptions. No substantial question on the pleadings is presented. The judgment will therefore be affirmed. Harvey Co. v. Malley,288 U.S. 415, 53 S.Ct. 426, 77 L.Ed. 866; Eastman Kodak Co. v. Gray,292 U.S. 332, 54 S.Ct. 722, 78 L.Ed. 1291; Armstrong v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 8 Cir.,85 F.2d 185.

Judgment affirmed.