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.
Blakely D. McCAUGHN, Former Collector, Appellant, v. UNION PAVING CO., National Surety Co., Appellees, 1933 — 63 F.2d 258 · caselaw · US
Tax
Blakely D. McCAUGHN, Former Collector, Appellant, v. UNION PAVING CO., National Surety Co., Appellees
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
Blakely D. McCAUGHN, Former Collector, Appellant, v. UNION PAVING CO., National Surety Co., Appellees.
No. 4993.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Feb. 6, 1933.
Rehearing Denied March 11, 1933.
Edward 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 by Blakely D. McCaughn, who was collector of internal revenue at the time the defendants gave bond to him as collector. He was no longer in office at the time of suit. Since there was- the same failure to substitute the successive collectors iu the manner and within the time prescribed by the Act of February 8, 1899, as amended (28 USCA § 780), as existed in Ladner v. Philadelphia Barge Company et al. (C. C. A.) 63 F.(2d) 258, filed February 6, 1933, the case is ruled by the same law.
Judgment affirmed.