Case Name: William L. MELLON, Jr., and Mellon National Bank & Trust Co., etc., Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent; Matthew T. MELLON and Mellon National Bank & Trust Co., etc., Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent; John F. WALTON, Jr., and Mellon National Bank & Trust Co., etc., Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent; MELLON NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO., etc., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1949-05-11
Citations: 174 F.2d 828
Docket Number: Nos. 9869-9872
Parties: William L. MELLON, Jr., and Mellon National Bank & Trust Co., etc., Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Matthew T. MELLON and Mellon National Bank & Trust Co., etc., Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. John F. WALTON, Jr., and Mellon National Bank & Trust Co., etc., Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. MELLON NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO., etc., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 174
Pages: 828–828

Head Matter:
William L. MELLON, Jr., and Mellon National Bank & Trust Co., etc., Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Matthew T. MELLON and Mellon National Bank & Trust Co., etc., Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. John F. WALTON, Jr., and Mellon National Bank & Trust Co., etc., Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. MELLON NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO., etc., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
Nos. 9869-9872.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued May 6, 1949.
Filed May 11, 1949.
William F. Knox, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Judson A. Crane, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for petitioners.
Edward J. P. Zimmerman, Washington, D. C. (Theron Lamar Caudle, Assistant Attorney General, Ellis N. Slack and Helen Goodner, Special Assistants to the Attorney General, on the brief), for respondent.
Before MARIS, GOODRICH, and MCLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The question involved in this group of income tax cases is whether the settlor of each of the trusts in question created one trust, with several and shifting beneficiaries, or whether -he created a main trust with subsidiary trusts for individual minor beneficiaries. This question is said by both sides to be one determined by the settlor's intention as that intention is shown by examination of the instrument creating the trust. The Tax Court, after full statement of the facts, found that the instrument created one trust. 11 T.C. 135. Assuming that this is a fact conclusion which we may set aside if clearly erroneous, we nevertheless shall affirm because we think that the conclusion reached by the Tax Court is correct.
The decisions of the Tax Court will be affirmed.