Rasmussen

Murray Hospital v. Rasmussen

Good Law
20 F.2d 29·6 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 6822·6 A.F.T.R. (RIA) 6822·1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 2457
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 13, 1927No. 5055California355 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Rudkin, J.

(after stating the facts as above). The right of the plaintiff in error to deduct from its gross income losses sustained during the taxable year, not compensated for by insurance or otherwise, is apparently not controverted, so that we are only concerned with the single question, whether the amended complaint shows any such losses. It is there directly averred that the plaintiff in error paid Murray within the taxable year the sum of $100,000, that $42,-800 of this amount was paid for stock held by Murray in the corporation, and that the balance was paid by way of settlement and compromise of the various claims and demands set forth in the amended complaint. Speaking generally, these were: The claim of the Granite-Alaska Company involved in the suit pending in the state court; the controversy with the same company over the contract to furnish steam heat and hot water for the hospital building; the settlement of the stockholder suit brought by Murray for an injunction and the appointment of a receiver; the settlement of the threatened suit to recover certain apparatus in the hospital; and other threatened litigation, the nature of whieh is not disclosed.

The demurrer was…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.