Case Name: FRANKLE BROTHERS COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. Carl F. ROUTZAHN, Defendant in Error
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1928-07-06
Citations: 26 F.2d 1018
Docket Number: No. 5091
Parties: FRANKLE BROTHERS COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. Carl F. ROUTZAHN, Defendant in Error.
Judges: Before DENISON, MOORMAN, and KNAPPEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 26
Pages: 1018–1018

Head Matter:
FRANKLE BROTHERS COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. Carl F. ROUTZAHN, Defendant in Error.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
July 6, 1928.
No. 5091.
Frankel, Brunenkant & Frankel and Max P. Goodman, all of Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff in error.
A. E. Bernsteen, U. S. Atty., of Cleveland, Ohio, and C. M. Charest, General Counsel Bureau of Internal Revenue, and Wm. E. Davis, Sp. Atty. Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., for defendant in error.
Before DENISON, MOORMAN, and KNAPPEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Overlooking any lack of detail in the assignments of error, yet they do not attempt to raise any substantial question, excepting whether the testimony required the opposite result, and the judgment must be affirmed, upon the authority of Law v. U. S., 266 U. S. 494, 45 S. Ct. 175, 69 L. Ed. 401; Fleischman v. U. S., 270 U. S. 349, 46 S. Ct. 284, 70 L. Ed. 624; Oyler v. Cleveland (C. C. A. 6) 16 F.(2d) 455.
The stipulation of facts does not supply the lack of findings, for the stipulation is incomplete. It covers only the undisputed matters; but the questions whether there had been, in fact, any loss of good will, or any loss by a shortage, are not stipulated. Not only is there no finding that-such loss had been incurred, but the opinion of the trial judge indicates, to say the least, his doubt.
Oral opinion. No written opinion filed.