General
PINE HILL CRYSTAL SPRING WATER CO. v. UNITED STATES
58 F.2d 506·United States Court of Claims·1932
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
PINE HILL CRYSTAL SPRING WATER CO. v. UNITED STATES.
No. J-613.
Court of Claims.
May 2, 1932.
Harry S. Hall, of New York City, for plaintiff.
Joseph H. Sheppard, of Washington, D. C., and Charles B. Rugg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Before BOOTH, Chief Justice, and GREEN, LITTLETON, WILLIAMS, and WHALEY, Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This case turns upon the question as to whether the plaintiff filed in time a proper claim for refund. Plaintiff contends that the letter of January 31, 1923 (finding 4), is a sufficient and legal refund claim. This issue was involved in the case of Philipsborn v. United States, 53 F. (2d) 133, 72 Ct. Cl. 545, and we think that the plaintiff’s case comes within that decision. See, also, Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States, 260 U. S. 565, 43 S. Ct. 169, 67 L. Ed. 406.