1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 26 F.2d
  5. 26 F.2d 1018 (1928)
 

FRANKLE BROTHERS COMPANY v. ROUTZAHN

No. 5091.

26 F.2d 1018 (1928)

FRANKLE BROTHERS COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. Carl F. ROUTZAHN, Defendant in Error.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

July 6, 1928.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Frankel, Brunenkant & Frankel and Max P. Goodman, all of Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff in error.

A. E. Bernsteen, U. S. Atty., of Cleveland, Ohio, and C. M. Charest, General Counsel Bureau of Internal Revenue, and Wm. E. Davis, Sp. Atty. Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., for defendant in error.

Before DENISON, MOORMAN, and KNAPPEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Overlooking any lack of detail in the assignments of error, yet they do not attempt to raise any substantial question, excepting whether the testimony required the opposite result, and the judgment must be affirmed, upon the authority of Law v. U. S., 266 U.S. 494, 45 S.Ct. 175, 69 L. Ed. 401; Fleischman v. U. S., 270 U.S. 349, 46 S.Ct. 284, 70 L. Ed. 624; Oyler v. Cleveland (C. C. A. 6) ...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases