Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

George LANGSTAFF, Plaintiff in Error, v. Robert H. LUCAS, Collector, Defendant in Error.

PER CURIAM.

After considering carefully the reasons urged against it, we feel satisfied to affirm the judgment ( 9 F.[2d] 691), and we do so upon the reasoning and conclusions of the District Judge. Although the half interest in the corporate assets which came to Langstaff was within the broad definition of "dividend" in section 201(a), being Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 6336 1/8b, yet the transaction was the very one specifically provided for in the last sentence of section 201(c), and the half interest became the proceeds of the sale of Langstaff's stock in the corporation, instead of a corporate dividend. Only so can the sections be effectively read together.

Judgment affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

LANGSTAFF v. LUCAS
(Jun 30, 1926)