PER CURIAM.
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.