A-98437, NOVEMBER 23, 1938, 18 COMP. GEN. 473

A-98437: Nov 23, 1938

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

PARTICULARLY INASMUCH AS THE TAX RETURNS INVOLVED WERE MADE UNDER OATH IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY LAW. THAT NO ERROR IS SHOWN ON THE PART OF ANY TAX ASSESSOR. THAT NO APPEAL IS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE BOARD OF PERSONAL TAX APPEALS. THAT NO CERTIFICATE OF THE COLLECTOR OF TAXES "OF SUCH ERRONEOUS PAYMENT" IS PRESENTED NOR ANY SHOWING MADE THAT THE AUDITOR AND DISBURSING OFFICER FOR THE DISTRICT ARE SATISFIED THAT THE CLAIM FOR REFUND IS JUST AND EQUITABLE. IS AS FOLLOWS: THE COMMISSIONERS DESIRE TO SUBMIT FOR YOUR EARLY CONSIDERATION AND ADVICE THE APPLICATION OF INA MILLS AND LAURENCE A. WHICH IT IS REPORTED INCLUDES AN AMOUNT DUE THE ESTATE FROM THE UPPER SARANAC COMPANY. THE TAX ON THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE RETURN WAS PAID SEPTEMBER 16.

A-98437, NOVEMBER 23, 1938, 18 COMP. GEN. 473

TAXES - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA - REFUNDS INTANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES VOLUNTARILY PAID THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BY EXECUTORS OF AN ESTATE ON THE AMOUNT OF A DEMAND NOTE OF A CORPORATION CARRIED ON ITS BOOKS AS OWING TO THE ESTATE BUT SUBSEQUENTLY TREATED AS PAID BY A COURT OF EQUITY ON THE GROUNDS THAT DECEDENT PRIOR TO HIS DEATH HAD TRANSFERRED STOCK BELONGING TO THE CORPORATION BUT STANDING IN HIS NAME IN ORDER TO MAKE GIFTS TO HIS DAUGHTERS, MAY NOT BE REFUNDED TO THE ESTATE IN VIEW OF THE SETTLED RULE AS TO TAXES VOLUNTARILY PAID, PARTICULARLY INASMUCH AS THE TAX RETURNS INVOLVED WERE MADE UNDER OATH IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY LAW; THAT NO ERROR IS SHOWN ON THE PART OF ANY TAX ASSESSOR, APPRAISER, OR OTHER OFFICIAL OF THE DISTRICT; THAT NO APPEAL IS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE BOARD OF PERSONAL TAX APPEALS; AND THAT NO CERTIFICATE OF THE COLLECTOR OF TAXES "OF SUCH ERRONEOUS PAYMENT" IS PRESENTED NOR ANY SHOWING MADE THAT THE AUDITOR AND DISBURSING OFFICER FOR THE DISTRICT ARE SATISFIED THAT THE CLAIM FOR REFUND IS JUST AND EQUITABLE.

ACTING COMPTROLLER GENERAL ELLIOTT TO THE PRESIDENT, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, NOVEMBER 23, 1938:

YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 8, 1938, IS AS FOLLOWS:

THE COMMISSIONERS DESIRE TO SUBMIT FOR YOUR EARLY CONSIDERATION AND ADVICE THE APPLICATION OF INA MILLS AND LAURENCE A. SLAUGHTER, EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF HARRINGTON MILLS, DECEASED, SUBMITTED THROUGH THEIR ATTORNEYS, H. WINSHIP WHEATLEY AND H. WINSHIP WHEATLEY, JR., FOR THE REFUND OF AN ALLEGED EXCESS PAYMENT OF INTANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX FOR THE FISCAL YEARS 1936 AND 1937, UNDER THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES:

THE 1936 RETURN SHOWS INTANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY ASSESSED AT $447,360, WHICH IT IS REPORTED INCLUDES AN AMOUNT DUE THE ESTATE FROM THE UPPER SARANAC COMPANY, INC., OF $178,182.59. THE TAX ON THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE RETURN WAS PAID SEPTEMBER 16, 1935, IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,236.80.

THE 1937 RETURN SHOWS INTANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY ASSESSED AT $263,680.00, WHICH IT IS REPORTED INCLUDES THE ASSESSED VALUE OF A DEMAND NOTE DUE THE ESTATE FROM THE UPPER SARANAC COMPANY, INC., IN THE FACE AMOUNT OF $131,533.20. IN THE 1937 RETURN THE NOTE IS LISTED AT THE ASSESSED VALUE OF $105,226.56. THE TAX ON THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE RETURN WAS PAID SEPTEMBER 15, 1936, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,318.40.

IN THE 1936 RETURN RENDERED BY THE EXECUTORS JULY 29, 1935, THERE APPEARS, UNDER THE CAPTION ,OTHER CREDITS," THE AMOUNT OF $222,913.39, WHICH THE ATTORNEYS CLAIM INCLUDES THE AMOUNT DUE THE ESTATE AS FOLLOWS: MILLS HOTEL CORPORATION --------------------------------- $47,806.38 UPPER SARANAC CO. --------------------------------------- 178,182.59 ELEANOR M. RILE ----------------------------------------- 3,534.86

TOTAL ------------------------------------------- 229,523.83 LESS AMOUNT DUE COQUINA HOTEL CORPORATION --------------- 6,610.44

NET TOTAL AS REPORTED IN THE RETURN ------------- 222,913.39

THE FIVE-TENTHS OF ONE PERCENT TAX IMPOSED ON INTANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY, AS FIXED BY SECTIONS 681 AND 753, TITLE 20, D.C. CODE, ON THE BASIS OF THE FOREGOING CLAIM WOULD BE:

TABLE. FIRST ITEM, AMOUNT INCLUDED IN 1936 RETURN ---------- $178,182.59 LESS ERROR IN BREAK-DOWN ------------- $ 350.61 LESS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE ---- ------------ 6,610.44 LESS SUBSEQUENT PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT BY

THE UPPER SARANAC COMPANY ---------- 47,000.00

53,960.05

------------- 1/2 OF 1 PERCENT TAX ON --------------- ------------- 124,222.54

$621.11 SECOND ITEM, FACE AMOUNT OF DEMAND

NOTE ----------------------------- $131,533.20 LESS 20 PERCENT ALLOWED AS DISCOUNT - 26,306.64

------------ 1/2 OF 1 PERCENT TAX ON ------------ 105,226.56 ------------ ----- 526.13

TOTAL TAX ON THESE ITEMS -------------------------------------- 1,147.24

IT IS SIGNIFICANT TO NOTE THAT THE DEMAND NOTE GIVEN BY THE UPPER SARANAC COMPANY, AS EVIDENCE OF THE ALLEGED DEBT DUE HARRINGTON MILLS, WAS VOIDED BY ORDER OF THE COURT EFFECTIVE AS OF JUNE 6, 1932. SECTION B OF THE ORDER OF THE COURT, EQUITY NO. 62780, PROVIDES:

"THAT THE UPPER SARANAC COMPANY IS ENTITLED TO A CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-TWO THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS AND TWENTY-SIX CENTS ($132,835.26) AS OF JUNE 6, 1932, ON THE DEBT HERETOFORE REPORTED AS DUE FROM IT TO HARRINGTON MILLS AT THE DATE OF HIS DEATH IN THE AMOUNT OF ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY EIGHT THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-THREE DOLLARS AND TWENTY CENTS ($178,533.20).'

IF, AS STATED BY THE ATTORNEYS, THE UPPER SARANAC COMPANY PAID TO THE EXECUTORS ON ACCOUNT OF THIS DEBT, $47,000, SUBSEQUENT TO THE TAX RETURN, IT APPEARS THAT IT SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FROM THE CLAIM, AS WELL AS THE ITEM OF $6,610.44 DEDUCTED AS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE TO COQUINA HOTEL CORPORATION.

WE THINK THE ONLY POINT HERE FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER OR NOT THE ORDER OF THE COURT, IN SETTING ASIDE A PART OF THIS DEBT, HAS THE EFFECT OF RENDERING PAYMENTS MADE SUBSEQUENT TO JUNE 30, 1932, AS BEING ERRONEOUS, THERE BEING NOTHING OF RECORD AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT TO INDICATE THAT THE ACCOUNT HAD NOT REPRESENTED A VALID CLAIM AGAINST THE UPPER SARANAC COMPANY. YOUR OFFICE, IN 13 COMP. GEN. 297, HELD THAT "UNDER THE LAW, THE DUTY TO REFUND IS RESTRICTED TO INSTANCES IN WHICH TAXES HAVE BEEN ERRONEOUSLY COLLECTED, AN EXPRESSION WHICH DENOTES SOME MISTAKE OR ERROR ON THE PART OF THE COLLECTING OFFICER, ETC.'

IN CONSIDERING THIS MATTER THERE IS ENCLOSED FOR YOUR INFORMATION A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COURT ORDER, THE ORIGINAL REQUEST OF THE ATTORNEYS DATED JUNE 16, 1938, THE ORIGINAL TAX RETURNS FOR THE FISCAL YEARS 1936 AND 1937, THE BRIEF OF THE ATTORNEYS RECEIVED OCTOBER 3, 1938, AND A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CANCELED NOTE.

IT IS REQUESTED THAT THESE ENCLOSURES BE RETURNED WITH YOUR DECISION IN THE MATTER AS TO WHETHER YOUR OFFICE WOULD INTERPOSE ANY OBJECTION TO A REFUND UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.

IT APPEARS THAT INA MILLS AND LAURENCE A. SLAUGHTER, AS EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF HARRINGTON MILLS, MADE THE PERSONAL TAX RETURNS UNDER OATH IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY LAW. 20 D.C. CODE 753. THE PHOTOSTATIC COPY OF THE NOTE SHOWS IT TO BE A DEMAND NOTE DATED APRIL 6, 1936 (MORE THAN 1 YEAR AFTER THE DEATH OF HARRINGTON MILLS), RECITING ON ITS FACE AS GIVEN "FOR VALUE RECEIVED" AND MADE PAYABLE TO INA MILLS AND LAURENCE A. SLAUGHTER, EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF HARRINGTON MILLS, DECEASED, IN THE AMOUNT OF $131,533.20 WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 4 PERCENT PER ANNUM UNTIL PAID.

THE EXPLANATION RELIEF UPON IN THE CLAIM FOR REFUND OF PERSONAL TAX, RECENTLY FILED BY THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE EXECUTORS, IS AS FOLLOWS:

BEFORE THE HONORABLE COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN RE: REFUND OF INTANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX PAID BY INA MILLS AND LAURENCE A. SLAUGHTER, EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF HARRINGTON MILLS, FOR THE TAX YEARS 1936 AND 1937.

IN THE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX RETURN FILED BY THE EXECUTORS ABOVE NAMED, IN JULY OF 1935, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JULY 1936, THERE WAS AN ITEM UNDER "4--- OTHER CREDITS" OF $222,913.39. THIS ITEM WAS AN ERROR IN THAT IT WAS $131,533.20 MORE THAN WAS DUE TO THE ESTATE. THE ERROR OCCURRED IN THE FOLLOWING WAY:

MR. MILLS DIED MARCH 5, 1935. THE TAX RETURN WAS DUE IN JULY OF 1935 AND THE EXECUTORS MADE IT UP FROM THE BEST INFORMATION THAT THEY HAD AT THAT TIME. THE DETAILS OF THE ITEM DISCUSSED ABOVE ARE AS FOLLOWS:

TABLE. DUE BY MILLS HOTEL CORPORATION ----------------- $47,838.67

32.29

$47,806.38 DUE BY UPPER SARANAC CO. ----------------------- 179,087.59

905.00

178,182.59 DUE BY ELEANOR M. REILLY ------------------------- ---------- 3,534.86

229,523.83 DUE TO COQUINA HOTEL CORPORATION ---------------------------- 6,610.44

222,913.39

THE ITEM OF $178,182.59, INCLUDED THE ITEM OF $131,533.20, TO WHICH REFERENCE WAS MADE ABOVE. THE EXECUTORS, TAKING THEIR FIGURES FROM THE BOOKS OF THE UPPER SARANAC COMPANY, REPORTED IN THEIR FIRST ACCOUNT TO THE COURT THAT THERE WAS DUE FROM THE UPPER SARANAC COMPANY TO HARRINGTON MILLS $178,533.20. THE UPPER SARANAC COMPANY PAID TO THE EXECUTORS ON ACCOUNT OF THIS DEBT $47,000.00, SUBSEQUENT TO THE TAX RETURN, TO WHICH REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE, WHICH LEFT A BALANCE OF $131,533.20, FOR WHICH THE UPPER SARANAC COMPANY GAVE TO THE EXECUTORS ITS NOTE BEARING INTEREST AT FOUR PERCENT.

SUBSEQUENTLY IT WAS DISCOVERED BY THE EXECUTORS THAT THE UPPER SARANAC COMPANY DID NOT AT MR. MILLS' DEATH OR ANY OTHER DATE OWE ANY SUCH SUM OF MONEY TO THE EXECUTORS AND THE REASON IT WAS NOT DUE WAS THAT ON JUNE 6, 1932, HARRINGTON MILLS HAD USED STOCK BELONGING TO THE UPPER SARANAC COMPANY BUT STANDING IN HIS NAME, IN ORDER TO MAKE GIFTS TO HIS DAUGHTERS. THE VALUE OF THAT STOCK AT THAT TIME WAS $132,835.26, WHICH OFFSET THE DEBT THAT HAD BEEN REPORTED AS DUE FROM THE UPPER SARANAC COMPANY TO MR. MILLS. A PETITION SETTING FORTH THESE FACTS WAS FILED IN EQUITY CAUSE NO. 62780, ENTITLED LAWRENCE A. SLAUGHTER AND INA MILLS, TRUSTEES UNDER THE WILL OF HARRINGTON MILLS, VS. ELEANOR M. REILLY, ET AL., EQUITY CAUSE NO. 62780, IN WHICH THE COURT, AMONG OTHER THINGS, DECREED---

"THAT THE UPPER SARANAC COMPANY IS ENTITLED TO A CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND THIRTY FIVE DOLLARS AND TWENTY-SIX CENTS ($132,835.26) AS OF JUNE 6, 1932, ON THE DEBT HERETOFORE REPORTED AS DUE FROM IT TO HARRINGTON MILLS AT THE DATE OF HIS DEATH IN THE AMOUNT OF ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-THREE DOLLARS AND TWENTY CENTS ($178,533.20).'

YOU ALREADY HAVE A COPY OF THIS DECREE.

THE EXECUTORS, THEREFORE, WERE IN ERROR WHEN THEY REPORTED THAT THE ESTATE HAD ASSETS OF $222,913.39, AND THAT ERROR AMOUNTED TO THE EXTENT OF $131,533.20, UPON WHICH THEY PAID INTANGIBLE TAX AND ON WHICH THEY ASK REFUND TO THEM FOR THAT YEAR.

BY WAY OF ANTICIPATION OF POSSIBLE DIFFICULTIES THAT MAY ARISE IN RECONCILING THE FIGURES IN THE BREAK-DOWN ABOVE MENTIONED, ATTENTION IS CALLED TO THE FACT THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF $350.61 BETWEEN THE ITEM OF $178,182.59 IN THE BREAKDOWN AND $178,533.20 IN THE FIRST ACCOUNT OF THE EXECUTORS. THIS ERROR OCCURRED IN THE FOLLOWING WAY: THE EXECUTORS WERE REQUIRED TO FILE A PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX RETURN IN JULY 1935 AND WERE NOT REQUIRED TO FILE THEIR ACCOUNTS IN COURT UNTIL APRIL 4, 1936. THE ITEMS AS STATED IN THE EXECUTORS' ACCOUNT ARE CORRECT, SO THAT IT MAY POSSIBLY BE THAT THERE IS DUE FROM THE EXECUTORS INTANGIBLE TAX UPON $350.61 MORE THAN WAS REPORTED AT THE TIME AND THAT ERROR OCCURRED AS FOLLOWS: THE ITEM OF $905 IN THE BREAK-DOWN SHOULD HAVE BEEN $554.39, MAKING A DIFFERENCE OF $350.61.

THERE APPEARS ON THE BREAK-DOWN AN ITEM OF "DUE TO COQUINA HOTEL CORPORATION, $6,610.44," WHICH WAS DEDUCTED FROM THE TOTAL CREDITS AMOUNTING TO $229,523.83. THE AFORESAID ITEM OF $6,610.44 BEING A DEBT DUE BY THE ESTATE IS NOT A DEDUCTIBLE ITEM AND IS TAXABLE.

DUE TO THE FOREGOING ERRORS, IT NOW APPEARS THAT TAX SHOULD BE PAID ON THE ITEMS OF $350.61 AND $6,610.44 AND ALLOWANCE MADE THEREFOR IN COMPUTING THE REFUND FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1936.

IN THE 1937 TAX RETURN, FILED IN JULY OF 1936, THERE IS A BREAK-DOWN OF THE ASSETS, CONTAINED IN THE EXHIBIT ATTACHED TO THE RETURN. IN THAT EXHIBIT, THE NOTE TO WHICH REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE ABOVE OF $131,533.20 WAS RETURNED AT 80 PERCENT OF ITS VALUE, SO THAT THE TAX WAS PAID ON THAT NOTE ON $105,266.56. THE SAME FACTUAL SITUATION EXISTS AS TO THIS ITEM AS TO THE ITEM OF $131,533.20 TO WHICH REFERENCE WAS MADE ABOVE AND REFUND IS ASKED FOR TAX PAID ON THIS ITEM.

THIS WHOLE MATTER WAS REVIEWED AT LENGTH BY THE COURT IN THE EQUITY CAUSE TO WHICH REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE ABOVE. PETITION WAS FILED, THE COURT REFERRED THE MATTER TO A MASTER, THE MASTER FILED A REPORT, THE COURT CONFIRMED THE REPORT, AND YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU A COPY OF THE DECREE OF THE COURT IN THAT CAUSE.

IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THERE NEVER WAS A DEBT DUE FROM THE UPPER SARANAC COMPANY TO THE MILLS ESTATE IN THE AMOUNT OF $131,533.20. IT IS NOT THE QUESTION OF AN ASSET LOSING ITS ALUE; IT MERELY NEVER EXISTED. THE SUBSEQUENT DECREE OF THE COURT DID NOT CHANGE THE ASSETS BUT MERELY DETERMINED THAT AS OF A TIME ANTERIOR TO MR. MILLS'S DEATH, THERE WAS NOTHING DUE FROM THE UPPER SARANAC COMPANY TO HIM. THE RETURNS BY THE EXECUTORS IN THE PERSONAL TAX RETURNS WERE ERRONEOUS.

APPLICATION IS RESPECTFULLY MADE FOR REFUND.

(SIGNED) H. WINSHIP WHEATLEY,

(SIGNED) H. WINSHIP WHEATLEY, JR., 1010 VERMONT AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C.

ATTORNEYS FOR LAWRENCE A. SLAUGHTER AND INA MILLS, EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF HARRINGTON MILLS.

NO COPY IS AMONG THE PAPERS OF THE RECORD WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF REFERENCE TO A SPECIAL MASTER OR OF THE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MASTER UPON WHICH THE COURT BASED ITS DECREE OF FEBRUARY 9, 1937, BUT THE CONCLUDING PARAGRAPH OF THE DECREE AUTHORIZES A PAYMENT BY THE TRUSTEES OF $500 TO THE SPECIAL MASTER AS HIS FEES FOR SAID REFERENCE. IF IT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE DECEDENT TOOK STOCK OF THE CORPORATION AND GAVE IT TO HIS DAUGHTERS--- THAT TRANSACTION MAY BE A DEFENSE AGAINST PAYMENT OF THE NOTE BUT IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY AFFECT ANY PERSONAL TAX PAID UPON THE NOTE AS AN ASSET OF THE DECEDENT'S ESTATE. THERE IS NOT ASSERTED ANY ERROR ON THE PART OF ANY TAX ASSESSOR, APPRAISER, OR OTHER OFFICIAL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. NO APPEAL APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE BOARD OF PERSONAL TAX APPEALS (20 D.C. CODE 769). THERE IS NOT FOUND AMONG THE PAPERS SUBMITTED ANY CERTIFICATE OF THE COLLECTOR OF TAXES "OF SUCH ERRONEOUS PAYMENT" AS IS ASSERTED IN THE CLAIM FOR REFUND AND IT IS NOT SHOWN THAT THE AUDITOR AND DISBURSING OFFICER FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ARE SATISFIED FROM THE PARTICULARS PRESENTED THAT THE CLAIM FOR REFUND IS JUST AND EQUITABLE, IN THE ABSENCE OF WHICH IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD THE REFUND WOULD BE AUTHORIZED IN ANY EVENT. 20 D.C. CODE 821; A-20296 OF FEBRUARY 15, 1928.

ASIDE FROM THIS, HOWEVER, NOTHING APPEARS WHICH WOULD EXCEPT THE PRESENT CLAIM FROM WHAT IS UNDERSTOOD AS THE SETTLED RULE THAT TAXES VOLUNTARILY PAID UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE APPEARING--- THERE NOT BEING ANY DURESS INVOLVED--- MAY NOT BE RECOVERED. IF THE ASSETS OF THE MAKER OF THE NOTE WERE IN FACT INCORRECTLY REFLECTED ON ITS BOOKS DUE TO THE TAKING OVER BY THE DECEDENT OF SAID ASSETS AND DISTRIBUTION THEREOF TO CERTAIN MEMBERS OF HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY WHO IN THE NATURE OF THINGS WOULD BE BENEFICIARIES IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF HIS ESTATE--- AS IS INDICATED IN THE CLAIM PRESENTED FOR REFUND--- THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE NO BASIS FOR ALLOWING A REFUND TO THE ESTATE ANY MORE THAN IN THE SOMEWHAT ANALOGOUS SITUATION WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF 13 COMP. GEN. 297, TO WHICH YOUR LETTER REFERS. SEE IN THIS CONNECTION CHESAPEAKE, ETC., TELEPHONE CO. V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 39 APP.D.C. 565; GEORGETOWN COLLEGE V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 11 SUPREME COURT, D.C. 43; PITT V. CITY OF STAMFORD, 167 A 919, 117 CONN. 388; NETTLETON'S EXECUTOR V. CITY OF LOUISVILLE, 230 S.W. 957, 191 KY. 581.