Case Name: HECKETT ENGINEERING, Inc., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1949-03-01
Citations: 173 F.2d 572
Docket Number: No. 9803
Parties: HECKETT ENGINEERING, Inc., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 173
Pages: 572–573

Head Matter:
HECKETT ENGINEERING, Inc., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
No. 9803.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued Feb. 24, 1949.
Decided March 1, 1949.
Sidney B. Gambill, of Pittsburgh, Pa. (W. A. Seifert, William Wallace Booth, and Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for petitioner.
Sumner M. Redstone, of Washington, D. C. (Theron Lamar Caudle, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Ellis N. Slack, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., on the brief), for respondent.
Before MARIS, WALLER, and MCLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judges. •

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The only questions raised by the petitioner in this case are whether the Tax Court erred in finding as a fact that petitioner had acquired from Hollapd Engineering Company a contract between that company and E. H. Heckett giving the company, its successors and assigns, the right to the free use of Heckett's patents and whether the court erred in , refusing to grant petitioner's motion for rehearing so as to permit the introduction of additional, but not after-discovered, evidence on. this point. Our examination of the record satisfies us that the Tax Court's finding in question was not clearly erroneous and that the Court's refusal to' grant a rehearing did not constitute reversible error.
Accordingly the decision of the Tax Court will be affirmed