Corporations
Frank K. BOWERS, Plaintiff in Error, v. CARL SCHOEN SILK CORPORATION, Defendant in Error
16 F.2d 1014·United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·1926
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
Frank K. BOWERS, Plaintiff in Error, v. CARL SCHOEN SILK CORPORATION, Defendant in Error.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
December 6, 1926.)
No. 83.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
Writ of error to judgment entered in the District Court for the Southern District of' New York.
Emory E. Buckner, U. S. Atty., of New York City (Samuel C. Coleman, Asst. U. S. Atty., of New York City, and John E. Wheeler, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Eevenue, off Washington, D. C., of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Gould & Wilkie, of New York City (E. L. von Bemuth and M. S. Lockhart, both of' New York City, of counsel), for defendant in error.
Before HOUGH, HAND, and MACK, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
We see no reason to depart from the result of decisions already made. See United States v. Semple (C. C. A.) 10 F.(2d) 1023; Curtis, etc., v. United States, Court of Claims No. 83, October term, 1926.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.