Legal Opinion
Electric Storage Battery Co. v. McCaughn
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided April 28, 1931No. 14008PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.
This is an action at law tried to the court without a jury for the recovery of $973,-532.57, with interest, being the amount of manufacturers’ excise taxes paid by the plaintiff between July 22, 1922, and April 1, 1926.
The taxes were assessed and collected under subdivision 3 of section 900, tit. 9 of the Revenue Act of 1921 (42 Stat. 291), and under subdivision 3 of section 600, tit. 6 of the Revenue Act of 1924 (26 USCA § 881 note). The portions of the two acts material to the issue in this suit are identical. The language is:
“ * ' * * <p]iere shall be levied,…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- United States v. AndersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Botany Worsted Mills v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Ward v. Board of Commr's of Love Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Reinecke v. SpaldingSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. O'ConnorSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Routzahn v. Willard Storage Battery Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1933
- Durkee-Atwood Co. v. WillcutsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1936
- American Chain Co. v. EatonDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1932
- Burruss Land & Lumber Co. v. United StatesDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia · 1970
- Smith v. McDonaldDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1953