Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD EMERGENCY FLEET CORPORATION v. DELAWARE COUNTY, PA; SAME v. SCHOOL DIST. OF TINICUM TP., PA, 1928 — 25 F.2d 722 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD EMERGENCY FLEET CORPORATION v. DELAWARE COUNTY, PA; SAME v. SCHOOL DIST. OF TINICUM TP., PA
25 F.2d 722·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1928
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD EMERGENCY FLEET CORPORATION v. DELAWARE COUNTY, PA. SAME v. SCHOOL DIST. OF TINICUM TP., PA.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
April 17, 1928.
Nos. 3525, 3526.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Oliver B. Dickinson, Judge.
On. rehearing.
For former opinion, see 17 F.(2d) 40.
Paul W. Knox and George W. Coles, U. S. Atty., both of Philadelphia, Pa. (I. V. McPherson, of Washington, D. C., and Chauncey G. Parker, of Newark, N. J., of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Donald S. Edmonds and Porter, Foulkrod & McCullagh, all of Philadelphia, Pa., Albert Dutton MacDade, of Chester, Pa., and Albert J. Williams, of Media, Pa., for defendants in error.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.]
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
At the urgent request of the county of Delaware and the township of Tinieum, a rehearing was granted in this ease. After argument and due consideration had, we find no reason to differ from the conclusions heretofore reached, as set forth in the respective opinions of the majority and minority of the court. This renders it unnecessary to pass upon the question of the court’s right to grant a rehearing. The inability, of the county and township to" tax these lands and have the government aid them in the educational and other service they did under the abnormal conditions of the war, necessitated by schools, etc., for children of government employees, makes the case one of hardship', but relief therefrom does not lie with the courts, but the legislative branch of the government.