Henry K. Wampole & Co. v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Actions by the United States against Henry K. Wampole & .Co;., against the Smith, Kline & French Company, and against Edward H. Hance and others, trading as Hance Bros. & White. Judgment for the United States in each case, and defendants bring error.
1Opinion of the Court
LANNING, Circuit Judge.
[1] In each of these three cases the United States recovered a judgment which rests on the theory that the defendants, whose general business is that of wholesale druggists and manufacturing chemists, are liable, as rectifiers of distilled spirits', for the special tax mentioned in the third subdivision of section 3244 of the Revised Statutes (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2096). The part of that subdivision material for our present purpose is as follows:
“Rectifiers of distilled spirits shall pay two hundred dollars. Every person who rectifies, purifies or refines distilled…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- In re Lathrop, Haskins & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1910
- United States v. HanceDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1911
- United States v. S. Twitchell Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1911
3Cited by6 opinions
- United States v. Robert E. MeyerCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1987
- 3M Co. (Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing) v. BrownerCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1994
- Mayes v. Paul Jones & Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1921
- 3m Company v. Carol M. BrownerCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1994
- Schweizer v. MagerDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1924
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.