Forty Fort Coal Co. v. Kirkendall
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
At Law. Action by the Forty Fort Coal Company against Frederick C. Kirkendall, as Collector of Internal Revenue. Sur rule to show cause why judgment for plaintiff should not be opened.
1Opinion of the Court
WITMER, District Judge.
Suit was instituted by the plaintiff to recover an excise tax assessed by the Internal Revenue Department and paid under protest. Judgment was entered December 24, 1915, for want of an affidavit of defense. This judgment the court is now requested to open, in order that the defendant may defend.
[1,2] The proceedings in the case leading up to the judgment were not only regular, but the defendant’s counsel previously asked for and obtained an extension of time for filing an affidavit of defense. The defendant, the Collector of Internal Revenue, and his department, were…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Bronson v. SchultenSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Ex Parte Sibbald v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1838
- Craig v. LeslieSupreme Court of the United States · 1818
- Ladd v. . StevensonNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Phillips v. NegleySupreme Court of the United States · 1886
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Corn Exchange Bank v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
- In Re SheinmanDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1926
- Loíza Sugar Co. v. GallardoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1933
- Haugh & Keenan Storage & Transfer Co. v. HeinerDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1927
- Bache v. MoeDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1929
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.