From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Casey v. Sterling Cider Co.

Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit
Oct 27, 1926
15 F.2d 52 (1st Cir. 1926)

Opinion

No. 1623.

October 27, 1926.

In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts.

Action by the Sterling Cider Company against Andrew J. Casey, formerly acting Collector of Internal Revenue. Judgment for plaintiff (285 F. 885) was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals (294 F. 426). On plaintiff's motion that Circuit Court of Appeals recall its mandate, and amend its order affirming judgment, by adding thereto the words "with interest." Motion denied.

William W. Armstrong, of Rochester, N.Y., and George R. Farnum, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Boston, for plaintiff in error.

Before BINGHAM, JOHNSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.


On December 21, 1923, this court entered an order affirming the judgment of the District Court in the above-entitled case; said judgment having been rendered in favor of the Sterling Cider Company, and the government having prosecuted a writ of error to this court.

The Sterling Cider Company now (at the October term, 1926) presents a motion asking that we recall our mandate and amend the order by adding thereto the words "with interest." The government objects to this.

As the term at which the order of December 21, 1923, was entered has long since expired, and the modification desired would involve a matter of substance, and not of mere form, we are without power to make the modification, and the motion must be denied. Schell v. Dodge, 107 U.S. 629, 2 S. Ct. 830, 27 L. Ed. 601; E.G. Staude Mfg. Co. v. Labombarde, 247 F. 879, 160 C.C.A. 101.

The motion is denied.


Summaries of

Casey v. Sterling Cider Co.

Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit
Oct 27, 1926
15 F.2d 52 (1st Cir. 1926)
Case details for

Casey v. Sterling Cider Co.

Case Details

Full title:CASEY v. STERLING CIDER CO

Court:Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit

Date published: Oct 27, 1926

Citations

15 F.2d 52 (1st Cir. 1926)

Citing Cases

Wayne County Produce Co. v. Duffy-Mott Co.

Defendant, the manufacturer, after collecting the amount of the tax from the plaintiff, paid it over to the…

United States v. Korpan

We cannot assume on the facts of this case that Congress considered T.D. 5203, as stating the true…