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.
LADNER, Collector of Internal Revenue, v. PHILADELPHIA BARGE CO. et al., 1933 — 63 F.2d 258 · caselaw · US
Tax
LADNER, Collector of Internal Revenue, v. PHILADELPHIA BARGE CO. et al.
63 F.2d 258·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1933
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
LADNER, Collector of Internal Revenue, v. PHILADELPHIA BARGE CO. et al.
No. 4994.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Feb. 6, 1933.
Rehearing Denied March 11, 1933.
Edward W. Wells, U. S. Atty., and Thomas J. Curtin, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Philadelphia, Pa. (C. M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and C. C. McCormick, both of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas P. Mikell and Walter Biddle Saul, both of Philadelphia, Pa. (Saul, Ewing, Remick & Saul, of Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel), for appellees.
Before BUFFINGTON, DAVIS, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Suit was brought in the court below to recover from the Philadelphia Barge Company and- its surety upon a bond given to secure payment of taxes. The facts axe sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court below. MacLaughlin v. Philadelphia Barge Co., 60 F.(2d) 333.
The court having adjudged the affidavit of defense sufficient, the United States attorney, on behalf of the collector of internal revenue, caused judgment to he entered for the defendants. This appeal is from that judgment.
We find no error in the conclusion of the court below that the suit had abated by reason of failure to substitute the respective successive collectors from time to time in accordance with the provigions of -the Act of February 8, 1899, as amended (28 USCA § 780).
Judgment affirmed.