Day v. Mills

The evidence, especially the practical construction of the contract by the parties, convinces me that the agreement upon which plaintiff bases his right to recover did not apply to any saving of taxes accomplished as the result of inventory adjustments. Moreover, the latter were almost entirely the fruit of the efforts of others, in which plaintiff played little part. In so far as any tax reductions for the years 1918 and 1919 were due to changes in inventory valuations, it can hardly be said, therefore, that plaintiff “ recovered ” them. These circumstances would seem to dispose of…