Case: GRANITEVILLE MANUFACTURING CO. v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Graniteville Manufacturing Co. v. United States
Decision Date: 1930-04-07
Docket Number: No. H-288
Citation: 69 Ct. Cl. 475
Volume: 69
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: GRANITEVILLE MANUFACTURING CO. v. THE UNITED STATES
Judges: Williams, Judge; Green, Judge; and Booth, Chief Justice, concur.
Pages: 475–478

Head Matter:
GRANITEVILLE MANUFACTURING CO. v. THE UNITED STATES
[No. H-288.
Decided April 7, 1930]
Miller & Chevalier for the plaintiff.
Messrs. Charles R. Pollard and Ralph E. Smith, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Herman J. Galloway, for the defendant.
Certiorari applied for.

Opinion:
Littleton, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court:
The question involved in this case is the same as that decided by the court in Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills, Inc., v. United States, decided February 10, 1980. [Ante,. p. 70.]
The plaintiff contends that the deficiencies assessed for 1917 and 1919 were " additional assessments made under the revenue act of 1926 within the meaning of section 1116-of that act and, therefore, interest should be paid to the-date of the additional asesssments.
The defendant insists that since the additional assessments were for years prior to 1921, interest is payable only to the due date of the tax against which the credit is taken,, and that, inasmuch as plaintiff had been paid interest of $209.21 on the overpayment for 1918 credited against the-additional tax for 1919 at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from December 16, 1919, the date of payment, to March 15,. 1920, the date on which the 1919 tax became due, and since the tax for 1917 became due prior to the overpayment for 1919, no interest is allowable upon the amount credited to-1917.
The question is governed by the opinion of the court in Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills, Inc., v. United States, supra, and, for the reasons stated in that case, the plaintiff' is not entitled to recover. Petition must, therefore, be dismissed, and it is so ordered.
Williams, Judge; Green, Judge; and Booth, Chief Justice, concur.
Graham, Judge, concurs in view of the previous decisions, of the court.