ROBERT L. CROOK AND DANIEL H. CHRISTMAN

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Briggs v. United States, 45 F.2d 479 (6th Cir. 1930)
  …icable. ■ For the construction ' which would include the situation here involved: Notary v. U. S., 16 F.(2d) 434, 49 A. L. R. 1446 (8 C. C. A.); Rossi v. U. S., 16 F.(2d) 712 (8 C. C. A.); Fritzel v. U. S., 17 F.(2d) 965 (7 C. C. A.), Cert. denied, 275 U. S. 532, 48 S. Ct. 29, 72 L. Ed. 411; Butler v. U. S. 35 F.(2d) 76 (9 C. C. A.), Cert. denied, 281 U. S. 734, 50 S. Ct. 248, 74 L. Ed. 1149. For the narrower construction: Wc find several District Court cases hut in the C. G. A. only the dissent in Fritzel…
• Butler Hotel Co., Inc. v. United States, 35 F.2d 76 (9th Cir. 1929)
  …and of general interest and involved a controversy touching the scope and application of certain language used in the Lincoln Safe Deposit Case, 254 U. S. 88, 41 S. Ct. 31, 65 L. Ed. 151, 10 A. L. R. 1548, certiorari was denied in the Fritzel Case, 275 U. S. 532, 48 S. Ct. 29, 72 L. Ed. 411. See, also, U. S. v. Club Chez Pierre (D. C.) 31 F.(2d) 220; U. S. v. Kelly (D. C.) 24 F.(2d) 133; U. S. v. General Amusement Co. (D. C.) 19 F.(2d) 630; U. S. v. Budar (D. C.) 9 F.(2d) 126. Affirmed.…
• Liberty Baking Co. v. Heiner (W.D. Pa. 1929)
  …1926, the case then fell within the provisions of that act, and therefore under the section 278(d) of that act (26 USCA § 1061), the authorized collection period was extended to March, 1930. U. S. v. Crook (C. C. A.) 18 F.(2d) 449 (certiorari denied 275 U. S. 532, 48 S. Ct. 29, 72 L. Ed. 410); Florsheim Bros. Dry Goods Co. v. U. S. (D. C.) 26 F.(2d) 505; Bank of Commerce v. Rose (D. C.) 26 F.(2d) 365. On the merits of the ease, thei plaintiff is not entitled to recover. The item of $11,-000 for demolition o…