ALPHA SILK COMPANY v. UNITED STATES

Nos. 47755-47772, 47782-47786.

125 F.Supp. 941 (1954)

ALPHA SILK COMPANY v. The UNITED STATES. BEAR BRAND HOSIERY CO. v. The UNITED STATES. COHN-HALL-MARX CO. v. The UNITED STATES. DAVENPORT HOSIERY MILLS, Inc., v. The UNITED STATES. GEORGE ELBOGEN & CO. v. The UNITED STATES. Morton FELDMAN v. The UNITED STATES. E. GERLI & CO., Inc., v. The UNITED STATES. HOLEPROOF HOSIERY CO. v. The UNITED STATES. KAHN & FELDMAN, Inc., v. The UNITED STATES. M. K. M. HOSIERY MILLS, Inc. and Tennessee Knitting Mills, Inc., Successors in Interest to Massachusetts Knitting Mills, v. The UNITED STATES. Max OLTARSH, Moe Oltarsh, Abraham Oltarsh and Martin Oltarsh, partners doing business as J. Oltarsh, v. The UNITED STATES. DORGIN TEXTILE CORPORATION v. The UNITED STATES. PHOENIX HOSIERY COMPANY v. The UNITED STATES. RUDOLPH-DESCO COMPANY, Inc., v. The UNITED STATES. Fritz DE SCHULTHESS and Monica de Schulthess, co-partners doing business as de Schulthess & Company, formerly known as Charles Rudolph & Co., v. The UNITED STATES. SAUQUOIT SILK COMPANY, Inc., v. The UNITED STATES. SIBER HEGNER & COMPANY, Inc., v. The UNITED STATES. STANDARD HOSIERY MILLS, Inc., v. The UNITED STATES. BELDING HEMINWAY COMPANY v. The UNITED STATES. GUDEBROD BROS. SILK CO., Inc., v. The UNITED STATES. MILLER-SMITH HOSIERY COMPANY v. The UNITED STATES. Lawrence SCHIFF and Sidney L. Schiff, partners doing business as Lawrence Schiff Silk Mills v. The UNITED STATES. JOHN HAND & SONS, Inc., v. The UNITED STATES.

United States Court of Claims.

November 30, 1954.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

William A. Roberts, Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs. Irene Kennedy, Warren Woods, and Roberts & McInnis, Washington, D. C., were on the briefs.

Kendall M. Barnes, Washington, D. C., with whom was Warren E. Burger, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.


MADDEN, Judge.

These cases present the same questions which the court considered and answered in the cases of Edward P. Stahel & Co., Inc. v. United States, 78 F.Supp. 800, 111 Ct.Cl. 682, certiorari denied 336 U.S. 951, 69 S.Ct. 878, 93 L.Ed. 1106. We have reconsidered the questions and have come to the same conclusions. No purpose would be served by reciting again the historical facts recited in our former opinion, and again...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases