Legal Opinion

In re Kearns

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided November 1, 1894PublishedCited by 4 opinions

This was a petition by E. P„ Kearns, collector of internal revenue for the Twenty-Third district of Pennsylvania, praying for an attachment: against O. B. Clark for an alleged contempt in failing to comply with a summons issued to him by the collector, and requiring him to produce for inspection the books, etc., used by him as resident manager for the firm of Armour & Oo., wholesale dealers in oleomargarine.

1Opinion of the Court

BUFFINGTON, District Judge.

During the years 1893 and 1894, Armour & Co. paid an annual tax to the United States of $480, as wholesale dealers in oleomargarine, and as such made monthly returns to the government of the amounts of their1 sales, with the names of the purchaser's. On October 1.8, 1894, E. P. Kearns, Esq., collector of internal revenue for the Twenty-Third district of Pennsylvania, being of opinion such returns were false and fraudulent, summoned C. B. Clark, resident manager of said firm, to appear before him to testify -in a certain case arising under the internal reverme law's,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. In re Pacific Railway CommissionU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · 1887

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Schafer v. CraftDistrict Court, W.D. Kentucky · 1906
  2. United States v. LamsonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island · 1908
  3. Craft v. SchaferCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1907
  4. Craft v. SchaferCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1907

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API