Legal Opinion
Daube v. United States
United States Court of Claims
Decided November 14, 1932No. L-106PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GREEN, Judge.
The motion for new trial is based upon the statement that tkg court erred in stating. in the opinion that, although the application of the overpayment was made after the statute of limitations had run, the statute then in force did not extinguish the debt due from the taxpayer, it merely abrogated the remedy. It is urged on behalf of plaintiff that Bowers v. New York & Albany Lighterage Co., 273 U. S. 346, 47 S. Ct. 389, 390, 71 L. Ed. 676, held to the contrary. This is a mistake. The question for decision in that ease, as expressly stated in the opinion, was whether section 250…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Campbell v. HoltSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Graham & Foster v. GoodcellSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Stange v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Bowers v. New York & Albany Lighterage Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Bowers, Collector of Internal Revenue v. New York & Albany Lighterage Co. Same v. Seaman. Same v. FullerSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Daube v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Naumkeag Steam Cotton Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1933
- Abex Corp. v. VehlingIndiana Court of Appeals · 1983
- Ford Motor Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1935
- Charles A. Zahn Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1934
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.