CASE ET AL.

v.

LOS ANGELES LUMBER PRODUCTS CO.

Citator

Cited By

• Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., Ltd., 308 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1939)
  …was not brought “in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant.” (§ 51 of the Judicial Code, Act of March 3, 1887, 24 Stat. 552, as corrected by Act of August 13, 1888, 25 Stat. 433, 28 U. S. C. § 112.1) We took the case, 307 U. S. 619, because of the uncertainties in application of-§ 51, emphasized by conflict between the views belów and those of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Oklahoma Packing Co. v. Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co., 100 F. 2d 770. The sole question…
• Rasquin v. Humphreys, 308 U.S. 54 (U.S. 1939)
  …it in the district court to recover the tax as illegally collected. Judgment in his favor was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 101 F. 2d 1012, on the authority of Hesslein v. Hoey, 91 F. 2d 954. We granted certiorari, 307 U. S. 619, so that this case might be considered with the Sanford case. The gift tax, § 319 et seq. of the 1924 Act, so far as now material, reappeared in § 501 et seq. of the 1932 Act, 47 Stat. 169. Other pertinent provisions of the earlier act [*56] were r…