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.
Caroline H. McDOWELL, Executrix of Estate of Jesse C. McDowell, Deceased, Appellant, v. D. B. HEINER, Collector of Internal Revenue, Appellee, 1926 — 15 F.2d 1015 · caselaw · US
Criminal Law · MBE-tested
Caroline H. McDOWELL, Executrix of Estate of Jesse C. McDowell, Deceased, Appellant, v. D. B. HEINER, Collector of Internal Revenue, Appellee
15 F.2d 1015·United States Court of Appeals for the Third 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
Caroline H. McDOWELL, Executrix of Estate of Jesse C. McDowell, Deceased, Appellant, v. D. B. HEINER, Collector of Internal Revenue, Appellee.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
December 7, 1926.)
No. 3511.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania; W. H. Seward Thomson, Judge.
William G. Heiner, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.
Charles T. Hendler, of Washington, D. C., John D. Meyer, U. S. Atty., and W. J. Aiken, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Pittsburgh, Pa., and A. W. Gregg and Chester A. Gwinn, both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Harry C. Weeks, of Wichita Palls, Tex., amicus curiae.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAYIS, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
The opinion of the court below, reported at 9 F.(2d) 120, is so full and satisfactory that a further one by this court cannot perforce be but an attempt to restate what that court satisfactorily said. We therefore restrict ourselves to adopting its opinion and affirming its decree, dismissing plaintiff’s biR.