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.
NASH-BREYER MOTOR CO., Formerly Troy Motor Sales Co., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent, 1930 — 42 F.2d 192 · caselaw · US
Corporations
NASH-BREYER MOTOR CO., Formerly Troy Motor Sales Co., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
42 F.2d 192·United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·1930
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
NASH-BREYER MOTOR CO., Formerly Troy Motor Sales Co., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
No. 251.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
June 9, 1930.
Arthur H. Deibert and Theodore B. Benson, both of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key and John Vaughan Groner, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen. (C. M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and R. N. Shaw, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for respondent.
Before L. HAND, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This petition must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction for the reasons given in Massachusetts Eire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Commissioner, 42 F.(2d) 189, handed down herewith. The facts are the same, except that the petitioner is a Delaware corporation, which filed its return in California. The ease is a more striking illustration of the possible consequences. We should have to find very solid reasons for supposing that Congress intended to impose upon us at the will of the parties a controversy which for obvious reasons properly belongs either in the Ninth circuit, or in the District of Columbia. We may repeat here as well, however, that in fact the petitioner has suffered nothing from dismissal.
Petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.