U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1926

United States v. Davison

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Decided January 5, 1926 · Buffington, Woolley, Davis

9 F.2d 1022; 5 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 5791; 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 2397; 1926 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 7070; 5 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 5791 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

John D. Meyer, of Pittsburgh, Pa., and A. W. Gregg and A. Calder Mackay, both of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error., H. L. Stone, Jr., and John G. Frazer, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant in error.

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Western Maryland Railway Co. v. Continental Grain Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1963)
Cory Corporation and Mitchell Manufacturing Company, Delaware Corporations v. Ernest J. Sauber (7th Cir. 1961)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

In the court below, the collector of internal revenue brought suit against George S. Davison for income tax Which the said collector claimed was due and owing by him. On entry of judgment in favor of Davison, the government sued out this writ of error. Davison iwas a stockholder of the Gulf Oil Corporation, and his alleged taxable income came to *1023 him in the same way as that of his fellow stockholder, W. L. Mellon, whose ease was before decided by the court below. 279 F. 910, affirmed by this court, 281 F. 645. Following these cases, the trial judge held that the collector could not recover the income tax from Davison. By an oversight, the attempted review by the Supreme Court of the Mellon Case miscarried, and this present action was brought to eventually secure a review by that court of the question involved in the Mellon Case. It has been sought to differentiate the Davison from the Mellon Case, but we regard them as involving the same question.

Adhering, as we do, to our decision in the latter ease, we are of opinion the court below committed no error in following it, and its judgment is therefore affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.