Case Name: Frank K. BOWERS, Plaintiff in Error, v. CARL SCHOEN SILK CORPORATION, Defendant in Error
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1926-12-06
Citations: 16 F.2d 1014
Docket Number: No. 83
Parties: Frank K. BOWERS, Plaintiff in Error, v. CARL SCHOEN SILK CORPORATION, Defendant in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 16
Pages: 1014–1015

Head Matter:
Frank K. BOWERS, Plaintiff in Error, v. CARL SCHOEN SILK CORPORATION, Defendant in Error.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
December 6, 1926.)
No. 83.
Emory E. Buckner, U. S. Atty., of New York City (Samuel C. Coleman, Asst. U. S. Atty., of New York City, and John E. Wheeler, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Eevenue, off Washington, D. C., of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Gould & Wilkie, of New York City (E. L. von Bemuth and M. S. Lockhart, both of' New York City, of counsel), for defendant in error.
Before HOUGH, HAND, and MACK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We see no reason to depart from the result of decisions already made. See United States v. Semple (C. C. A.) 10 F.(2d) 1023; Curtis, etc., v. United States, Court of Claims No. 83, October term, 1926.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.