JULIUS F. SMIETANKA, AS COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ETC.,

v.

AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES

Citator

Cited By

• Steckler v. Pennroad Corp., 136 F.2d 197 (3d Cir. 1943)
  …77, 70 N.Y. 220. Boardman v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., 1881, 84 N.Y. 157, 184. Venner v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 2d Dept. 1917, 177 App.Div. 296, 164 N.Y.S. 626, 653, 659, affirmed 1919, 226 N.Y. 583, 123 N.E. 893, certiorari denied 1919, 249 U.S. 617, 39 S.Ct. 391, 63 L.Ed. 803. See Foley, supra note 4, at pp. 519, 520. Pollitz v. Wabash R. Co., 1st Dept. 1912, 150 App.Div. 709. 135 N.Y.S. 785; Pollitz v. Wabash R. Co., 1st Dept. 1915, 167 App.Div. 669, 152 N.Y.S. 803. Venner v. New York Cent…
• Atwater v. Wheeling & L. E. RY. Co., 56 F.2d 720 (6th Cir. 1932)
  …tion that where a sovereignty has spoken through a commission, its action is final. Venner v. New York Central & H. R. Co., 177 App. Div. 296, 343, 164 N. Y. S. 626, 657, affirmed without report 226 N. Y. 583, 123 N. E. 893, [*725] certiorari denied 249 U. S. 617, 39 S. Ct. 391, 63 L. Ed. 803.2 Even if the action of the commission was not final and is subject to change (a question which we need not decide), the appellant is not entitled to enjoin the execution of the user contract. No action on the part of,…