Legal Opinion

Appeal of Whybrow

United States Board of Tax Appeals

Decided March 9, 1925No. Docket No. 609PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

*727OPINION.

Sternhagen:

Clarence Wliybrow was an artist. His work was done on inspiration and his product was beauty. He concerned himself with color, line, balance, harmony, and proportion. Hig task was to catch the grandeur of the Louis’, the grace of the brothers Adam, or the charm of the classic Florentine, and install it behind a high brownstone stoop on Madison Avenue in place of its Victorian glass and gold. He thought not of quantity or of production or of unit costs. Success to him was in quality and effect. He bought paint, of course, and other materials for his art — so did Leonardo and…

2Cases cited8 opinions

De Laski & Thropp Circular Woven Tire Co. v. IredellDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1920
Lincoln Chemical Co. v. EdwardsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1923
Cartier v. DoyleCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1921
R. H. Martin, Inc. v. EdwardsDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1922
Empire Fuel Co. v. HaysDistrict Court, N.D. West Virginia · 1924

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

Whybrow v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1925