Legal Opinion
Bowers v. New York Trust Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided November 16, 1925No. 63PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHand, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
Taken formally there seems to us no doubt that the payments made after May 1, 1917, were not firm income. We reserve for tho moment the question whether we must go behind the form. Cannon had by the original articles the right to demand of the firm 60 per cent, gross of the commissions coming from the “Cannon Group.” This he surrendered, and got in its stead nothing but the firm’s promise not to collect any payments under its contracts with the 3 named mills. We do not forget that he was also given freedom to deal with the mills as he chose, but the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Rensselaer & S. R. v. IrwinCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1918
- Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1918
- Blalock v. Georgia Ry. & Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1917
- West End St. Ry. Co. v. MalleyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1917
- Rodgers v. . ClementNew York Court of Appeals · 1900
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Hamlen v. WelchCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1940
- Bing v. BowersDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1927
- Rosenwald v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1929
- St. Louis Public Service Company v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1957
- New York Trust Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1937
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.