PINE HILL CRYSTAL SPRING WATER CO.
v.
UNITED STATES
PINE HILL CRYSTAL SPRING WATER CO.
UNITED STATES
58 F.2d 506
United States Court of Claims (1932)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
This case turns upon the question as to whether the plaintiff filed in time a proper claim for refund. Plaintiff contends that the letter of January 31, 1923 (finding 4), is a sufficient and legal refund claim. This issue was involved in the case of Philipsborn v. United States, 53 F. (2d) 133, 72 Ct. Cl. 545, and we think that the plaintiff’s case comes within that decision. See, also, Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States, 260 U. S. 565, 43 S. Ct. 169, 67 L. Ed. 406.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sweeney v. United States, 285 F.2d 444 (Ct. Cl. 1961)
Authorities Cited
- Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. United States, 260 U.S. 565 (U.S. 1923)
- In re Downtown Wet Wash Laundry, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 1931)