Legal Opinion

Roebling v. Sturgess

District Court, D. New Jersey

Decided June 19, 1923PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BODINE, District Judge.

The bills in the above-entitled matters will be dismissed. Such actions are barred by section 3224 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (Comp. St. § 5947).

Assuming, however, that there is anything in the contention of the complainants that the collector has acted outside the scope of his authority in assessing the taxes in question, as was stated by Mr. Chief Justice Taft in Graham v. Du Pont, 262 U. S. 234, 43 Sup. Ct. 567, 67 L. Ed. -, May 21, 1923:

“It is certain that by tbe amendments to section 252 and section 3226, Rev. Stats., by the Act of March 4,1923,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Graham v. Du PontSupreme Court of the United States · 1923

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Sigman v. ReineckeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1924
  2. Waldron v. PoeDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1924

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

Powered by the Exa API