Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/232/292/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/232/292/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Pierce v. United States , 232 U.S. 292 (1914)
Pierce v. United States (No. 2)
No. 65, 624
Argued January 6, 7, 1914
Decided February 24, 1914
232 U.S. 292
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Syllabus
Decided on authority of Pierce v. United States, ante, p. 232 U. S. 290.
190 F.3d 9 reversed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases concern the right to recover a tax on the yacht Yacona, becoming due on the first of September, 1910. The complaint filed by the United States in No. 65 was in substance like that filed in the previous cases, and the answer in effect set up the same defenses, especially the defense relating to the nonuse of the yacht. The case, by stipulation, was submitted to the court without a jury, a finding of facts was made which distinctly established
the nonuse during the taxing year, and the court gave a judgment for the tax, although it rejected the interest, upon the same construction of the act which it applied in the previous cases. The certificate in this as in the other cases is here in consequence of error prosecuted by the United States to the circuit court of appeals because of the rejection of the interest claimed. Treating this case as we treated the others, and applying the construction in those cases given, it follows that the judgment in this case must be reversed.
And it is so ordered.
