Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

McDowell v. Heiner

15 F.2d 1015

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1926-12-07
Topic: general

PER CURIAM. The opinion of the court below, reported at 9 F.(2d) 120, is so full and satisfactory that a further one by this court cannot perforce be but an attempt to restate what that court satisfactorily said. We therefore restrict ourselves to adopting its opinion and affirming its decree, dismissing plaintiff’s biR.

Citator

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

Cited by: 1 opinion

McDOWELL v. HEINER,15 F.2d 1015(3rd Cir. 1926)

Caroline H. McDOWELL, Executrix of Estate of Jesse C. McDowell, Deceased,

Appellant, v. D.B. HEINER, Collector of Internal Revenue, Appellee.

No. 3511.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

December 7, 1926.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania; W.H. Seward Thomson, Judge.

William G. Heiner, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.

Charles T. Hendler, of Washington, D.C., John D. Meyer, U.S. Atty., and W.J. Aiken, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of Pittsburgh, Pa., and A.W. Gregg and Chester A. Gwinn, both of Washington, D.C., for appellee.

Harry C. Weeks, of Wichita Falls, Tex., amicus curiæ.

Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The opinion of the court below, reported at9 F.2d 120, is so full and satisfactory that a further one by this court cannot perforce be but an attempt to restate what that court satisfactorily said. We therefore restrict ourselves to adopting its opinion and affirming its decree, dismissing plaintiff's bill.