Legal Opinion

United States v. Olney

District Court, D. Oregon

Decided November 2, 1868PublishedCited by 11 opinions

2 [This action was brought to recover the sum of $100, alleged to be due the United States from the defendant, as a special tax for engaging in the business of a lottery dealer. It was commenced October 17, 1867, and tried by the court, without the intervention of a jury.

Read the full summary

2 [This action was brought to recover the sum of $100, alleged to be due the United States from the defendant, as a special tax for engaging in the business of a lottery dealer. It was commenced October 17, 1867, and tried by the court, without the intervention of a jury. The facts of the case are stated in the findings of the court, as follows: (1) That the defendant, on March 15, USG7, at Astoria, in the district aforesaid, being the owner of a large number of town lots in such town of Astoria, did then and there divide the greater portion of the same into six hundred parcels, for…

1Opinion of the Court

DEADY, District Judge.

This action is brought to recover the sum of one hundred dollars, alleged to be due the United States from the defendant, as a special tax for engaging in the business of lottery dealer. It was commenced October 17, 1S67, and tried by the court without the intervention of a jury, on November 13 thereafter, and has since been continued from term to term for deliberation and advisement. The facts of the case are stated in the findings of the court.

The law imposing this tax is found in subdivision 6 of section 70 of the internal revenue act of June 30, 1S64, as amended by…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Governors of the Almshouse of New York v. . Am. Art UnionNew York Court of Appeals · 1852
  2. People v. American Art UnionNew York Supreme Court · 1852

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Hudelson v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
  2. Maughs v. PorterSupreme Court of Virginia · 1931
  3. State Ex Rel. Frizzell v. Highwood Service, Inc.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1970
  4. State v. MumfordSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
  5. CONTACT, INC. v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1982

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API