Legal Opinion

Warner-Patterson Co. v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided June 10, 1929No. F-154PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSiNNott, Judge

Plaintiff seeks to recover $6,109.97, with interest, alleged to have been erroneously exacted by the United States as excise taxes on articles known as the Warner lens and Patterson lens, between the dates of June, 1923, and June, 1925, *241inclusive, under provisions of section 900 of the revenue act of 1921 (42 Stat. 227, 291) and section 600 of the revenue act of 1924 (43 Stat. 253, 322).

Plaintiff, during the period covered by the claim involved in this suit, had an exclusive license to manufacture, sell, and distribute said lenses. Plaintiff during said period purchased the patent.for the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Carbon Steel Co. v. LewellynSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
  2. Hancock v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1901
  3. Kaltenbach v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1929
  4. Foss-Hughes Co. v. LedererDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1919

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Charles Peckat Mfg. Co. v. JareckiCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1952
  2. International Curtis Marine Turbine Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1932
  3. Record Guild of America, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1959
  4. Acme Juicer Mfg. Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1973
  5. Record Guild of America, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1959

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

Powered by the Exa API