Tax
DOYLE, Collector of Internal Revenue, v. CARTIER et al.
287 F. 1021·United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·1923
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
DOYLE, Collector of Internal Revenue, v. CARTIER et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
April 3, 1923.)
No. 3765.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Michigan; John W. Peck, Judge. Action by Charles E. Cartier and Edward M. Holland, partners as the Cartier-Holland Lumber Company,- against Emanuel J. Doyle, Collector of Internal Revenue. Judgment for plaintiffs, and .defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
See 277 Fed. 150.
H. M. Darling, Sp. Atty. Bureau of Internal Revenue, of Washington, D. C. (Edward J. Bowman, U. S. Atty., of Grand Rapids, Mich.', and Carl A. Mapes, Solicitor of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for plaintiff in error. Julius H. Amberg, of Grand Rapids, Mich. (Butterfield, Keeney & Amberg, of Grand Rapids, on the brief), for defendant in error.
Before KNAPPEN, DENISON, and DONAHUE, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — DONAHUE, Circuit Judge.]
DONAHUE, Circuit Judge.
The record in this case presents the same questions that were considered and determined by this court in Cartier et al. v. Doyle, Internal Revenue Collector, 277 Fed. 150, which, in the opinion of a majority of this court, are controlling. For the reasons stated in the opinion in that case, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.