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.
Julia Andrews BRUCE, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent, 1930 — 42 F.2d 197 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Julia Andrews BRUCE, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
42 F.2d 197·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
Julia Andrews BRUCE, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
No. 216.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
May 19, 1930.
Raymond B. Goodell, of New York City, for petitioner.
G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. Louis Monarch and John Vaughan Groner, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen. (C. M. Char-est, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and Allin H. Pierce, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANTON, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — MANTON, Circuit Judge.]
MANTON, Circuit Judge.
This petitioner owned 350 shares of stock of the Andrews & Hitchcock Iron Company, which °she owned prior to March 1,1913, and sold on March 11, 1916, under the circumstances and terms referred to in the ease of Logan v. Commissioner (C. C. A.) 42 F.(2d) 193, decided this day. She also inherited 55%ooo interest from her mother’s estate. The income in question was moneys received during two years, 1918 and 1919, as payment made pursuant to the contract obligation of the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company to this petitioner. The same contract is involved. For the reasons there stated, it follows that the order of the Board determining these moneys in part to be income and taxable was erroneous, and the order must be reversed.
Order reversed.