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.
Andrew W. MELLON, as Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, ex rel. Z. & F. ASSETS REALIZATION CORPORATION, appellee, 1931 — 55 F.2d 745 · caselaw · US
Corporations
Andrew W. MELLON, as Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, ex rel. Z. & F. ASSETS REALIZATION CORPORATION, appellee
55 F.2d 745·United States District Court for the District of Columbia·1931
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
Andrew W. MELLON, as Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, ex rel. Z. & F. ASSETS REALIZATION CORPORATION, appellee.
No. 5481 (Mandamus Law No. 79631).
Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Argued Nov. 6, 1931.
Decided Dec. 21, 1931.
Leo A. Rover, John R. Benney, and H. W. Lihbey, all of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Spier Whitaker, of New York City, Lawrence A. Baker and Henry Ravenel, both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, HITZ, and GRONER, Associate Justices.
[MAJORITY — GRONER, Associate Justice.]
GRONER, Associate Justice.
This ease was submitted with No. 5402, Doerschuck v. Mellon, 60 App. D. C. 383, 55 F.(2d) 741, and the decision in that ease, handed down this day, covers the matters in controversy here. The judgment of the lower court must therefore be reversed, and it is so ordered.
Reversed.