§

Peavy-Byrnes Lumber Co. v. Comm'r

31 B.T.A. 985 (B.T.A. 1935)
Peavy-Byrnes Lumber Co. v. Comm'r

14 Cited authorities

  1. In re Sanford Fork Tool Co., Petitioner

    160 U.S. 247 (1895)   Cited 436 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding discretion exists when prior appellate decision reversed lower court but ordered no final judgment

  2. Arkadelphia Co. v. St. Louis S.W. Ry. Co.

    249 U.S. 134 (1919)   Cited 212 times
    Holding that the movement of rough lumber from the forest to a mill, where it was made into barrel hoops and staves, was not interstate commerce because there was "no continuous movement from the forest to the points" out of state, and because when the rough material left the woods "it was not intended that it should be transported" beyond the mill until it had been subjected to a manufacturing process

  3. Kansas City So. Ry. v. Trust Co.

    281 U.S. 1 (1930)   Cited 72 times

    CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 22. Argued January 15, 16, 1930. Decided February 24, 1930. 1. When used without qualification in a decree of a federal court, the word "costs" means the amounts taxable as such under Acts of Congress, rules promulgated by its authority and practice established consistently with governing enactments. P. 9. 2. In equity costs not otherwise governed by statute are given or withheld in the sound discretion of the court according

  4. Potts v. Creager

    155 U.S. 597 (1895)   Cited 158 times
    In Potts Co. v. Creager, 97 F. 78, 79, it appears from the statement of subsequent proceedings in the case that this court upon application granted leave to file a petition for rehearing in the Circuit Court.

  5. In re Potts, Petitioner

    166 U.S. 263 (1897)   Cited 105 times
    Contending that a once a higher court has decided a case on appeal, the lower court "has no authority, without express leave of [the higher] court, to grant a new trial, a rehearing, or a review, or to permit new defenses on the merits to be introduced by amendment of the answer"

  6. Gaines v. Rugg

    148 U.S. 228 (1893)   Cited 67 times

    ORIGINAL. Nos. 12 and 13 original. Argued March 7, 8, 1893. Decided March 20, 1893. This court, in Goode v. Gaines, ( 145 U.S. 141,) on an appeal by the defendant in a suit in equity, from a decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas, reversed the decree, and ordered that each party pay one-half of the costs in this court, and the mandate recited the decree of this court, and remanded the cause "for further proceedings to be had therein in conformity with

  7. Schneider Granite Co. v. Gast Realty & Investment Co.

    245 U.S. 288 (1917)   Cited 23 times

    ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI. Nos. 461, 473. Argued October 11, 12, 1917. Decided December 10, 1917. A street improvement tax having been laid upon abutting property under a city ordinance, partly according to frontage and partly according to area, and the state court having sustained it in toto, this court reversed its judgment upon the sole ground that the assessment based on area had produced results in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment, and sent the case back for further

  8. In re Washington Georgetown R'D Co.

    140 U.S. 91 (1891)   Cited 48 times

    ORIGINAL. No. 8. Original. Argued April 13, 14, 1891. Decided April 27, 1891. A judgment in an action of tort, for damages and costs, was rendered in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, at special term. It was affirmed by the general term, with costs. The latter judgment was affirmed by this court, with costs. Nothing was said about interest in either of the three judgments. On the presentation of the mandate of this court to the general term, it entered a judgment for the payment of the

  9. Rio Grande Dam c. Co. v. United States

    215 U.S. 266 (1909)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that the default judgment was valid because the RGD&IC's attorney was personally served with the supplemental complaint

  10. Ex Parte the Union Steamboat Company

    178 U.S. 317 (1900)   Cited 26 times

    ORIGINAL. No. 12, Original. Submitted May 14, 1900. Decided May 28, 1900. Where this court in a collision case directed a decree dividing the damages as between the two vessels, and allowing to the owners of the cargo of one vessel a full recovery against the other vessel; and the court below, upon the production of the mandate of this court, refused to permit the latter vessel to recoup against the other one half the damages to the cargo, it was held that the remedy was by a new appeal and not by