Tax

ED S. VAIL BUTTERINE CO. v. Mabel G. REINECKE, Collector of Internal Revenue

49 F.2d 1076·United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit·1931

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

ED S. VAIL BUTTERINE CO. v. Mabel G. REINECKE, Collector of Internal Revenue. No. 4442. Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. May 23, 1931. George N. Murdock, of Chicago, HI., for appellant. John Potts Barnes and George E. Q. Johnson, both of Chicago, 111., for appellee. Before EVANS and SPARKS, Circuit Judges, and LINDLEY, District Judge. [MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.] PER CURIAM. This appeal involves the constitutionality of the present oleomargarine law, being Act Aug. 2, 1886, 24 Stat. 209, as amended by Act May 9, 1902, 32 Stat. 193. The question is presented by the court’s ruling in sustaining appellee’s demurrer to appellant’s declaration. Appellant admits that to sustain its appeal it will be necessary for this court to rule contrary to the law as announced in McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27, 24 S. Ct. 769, 49 L. Ed. 78,1 Ann. Cas. 561. This we decline to do. The judgment of the District Court sustaining appellee’s demurrer to appellant’s declaration is affirmed.