Gray v. Darlington, 15 Wall. 63, 21 L. ed. 45; Lynch v. Turrish, 247 U. S. 221, 62 L. ed. 1087, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 537; Maryland Casualty Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 342, 64 L. ed. 297, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 155; The Abbottsford, 98 U. S. 440, 444, 25 L. ed. 168, 169; McDonald v. Hovey, 110 U. S. 619, 628, 28 L. ed. 269, 271, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 142; Sessions v. Romadka, 145 U. S. 29, 42, 36 L. ed. 609, 614, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 799; White-Smith Music Pub. Co. v. Apollo Co. 209 U. S. 1, 14, 52 L. ed. 655, 660, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 319, 14 Ann. Cas. 828. Even if there could be any doubt that neither the income tax provisions of the Revenue Acts of 1916 and 1917, nor the excess-profits-tax provisions of the Revenue Act of 1917, impose a tax on any portion of the proceeds of the Eldorado sale, that doubt would have to be resolved in favor of the Eldorado Company. Gould v. Gould, 245 U. S. 151, 62 L. ed. 211, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 53; Crocker v. Malley, 249 U. S. 223, 233, 63 L. ed. 573, 2 A.L.R. 1601, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 270. Any other interpretation would necessitate the conclusion that certain portions of these provisions of the Revenue Act of 1916 were unconstitutional, or at least would raise grave doubts in that regard, and, therefore, cannot be accepted. United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U. S. 394, 401, 60 L. ed. 1061, 1065, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 658, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 854; United States ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Delaware & H. Co. 213 U. S. 366, 408, 53 L. ed. 835, 849, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 527. Solicitor General Frierson argued the cause and filed a brief for defendant in error. For contentions of counsel, see his brief as reported in Merchants' Loan & T. Co. v. Smietanka, ante, 751. Mr. Justice Clarke delivered the opinion of the court: This case comes into this court on a writ of error to review a judgment of with in No. 608, this day decided [255 U. S. 509, ante, 751, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 386], that the fund taxed was not "income" within the scope of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and that the effect given by the lower court to the act renders it unconstitutional and void. The Eldorado Coal & Mining Company is an Indiana [526] corporation, which operated a bituminous coal mine and mining plant, which it sold in May, 1917, for cash. The company retained its accounts receivable, and, prior to September 30, 1917, it distributed among its stockholders, proportionately to their ownership of stocks, the cash received from the sale and the accounts receivable in kind. The corporation, however, was not dissolved nor its charter surrendered, because there were unsettled liabilities against it for Federal income taxes and excess profit taxes. Otherwise its affairs were wound up. It is averred in the declaration that, taking the fair market value as of March 1, 1913, of the capital assets of the company invested and employed in its business, and adding thereto the cost of additions and betterments, and subtracting depreciation and depletion to the date of sale, it appears that there was an appreciation in value of the property after March 1, 1913, of $5,986.02, and it was on this profit, realized by the sale, that the assessment of $3,073.16 was made, which the company paid and in this suit seeks to recover. It is obvious from this statement of the case that it presents in so nearly the same form precisely the same questions as were considered in No. 608, Merchants' Loan & T. Co. v. Smietanka, this day decided, that further discussion of them is unnecessary; and, on the authority of that case, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed. Mr. Justice Holmes and Mr. Justice Brandeis, because of prior decisions of the court, concur only in the judgment. Err., V. WILLIAM H. EDWARDS, United States the district court of the United States for the northern district of Illinois, sustaining a demurrer to a declaration in assumpsit to recover an assessment of [527] DAVID M. GOODRICH, Plff. in income and excess profits taxes for the year 1917, under warrant of the Income Tax Act of Congress. approved September 8, 1916 (39 Stat. at L. chap. 463, p. 756), as amended by the Act approved October 3, 1917 (40 Stat. at L. chap. 63, p. 300, Comp. Stat. § 6336aa, Stat. Anno. Supp. 1918, p. 336). Payment was made under protest, and the claim to recover is based upon the same contention dealt Collector of Internal Revenue for the Second District of the State of New York, (See S. C. Reporter's ed. 527-536.) Error to district court Federal ques tion tax. constitutionality of income 1. The Federal Supreme Court has jurisdiction of a writ of error to a district 'N ERROR to the District Court of court to review a judgment which sustained a demurrer to a declaration in assumpsit to recover back Federal income taxes, where the claim to recover is based upon the contention that the fund taxed was not income within the scope of U. S. Const., 16th Amend., and that the effect given by the lower court to the Federal legislation under which such taxes were imposed renders it unconstitutional and void. [For other cases, see Appeal and Error, 938- ac District of New York to review a decree which sustained a demurrer to the complaint in a suit to recover back Federal income taxes. Reversed as to one assessment and affirmed as to the other, and cause remanded for further proceedings. The facts are stated in the opinion. Mr. William D. Guthrie argued the cause, and, with Messrs. Langdon P. Marvin, Henry M. Ward, Herbert Pope, and Rush C. Butler, filed a brief for plaintiff in error: The growth or increment in value of real or personal property held for investment, when realized by sale, is not "income" within the meaning of the 16th income tax - ac- Amendment. cretions of selling values. 3. Taxable income under the Federal Income Tax Act of September 8, 1916, as amended by the Act of October 3, 1917, includes the gain derived from the sale of personal property which has appreciated in value during a series of years over its market value on March 1, 1913, if acquired before that date. [For other cases, see Internal Revenue, III. b, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.] Internal revenue income tax - accretions of selling values. 4. Only where, and to the extent that, a gain over the original investment is realized upon a sale of property acquired before March 1, 1913, and worth less on that date than when acquired, can there b, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.] [No. 663.] Argued March 10 and 11, 1921. Decided Note. On direct review in Federal Supreme Court of judgments of district or circuit courts-see notes to Gwin v. United States, 46 L. ed. U. S. 741; B. Altman & Co. v. United States, 56 L. ed. U. S. 894; and Berkman v. United States, 63 L. ed. U. S. 877. As to constitutionality of income taxsee notes to Alderman v. Wells, 27 L.R.A. (N.S.) 864, and State ex rel. Bolens v. Frear, L.R.A.1915B, 569. As to income tax on sales of property -see note to State ex rel. Bundy v. Nygaard, L.R.A.1917E, 566. Evans v. Gore, 253 U. S. 245, 261-263, 64 L. ed. 887, 895-897, 11 A.L.R. 519, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 550; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, 206, 64 L. ed. 521, 528, 9 A.L.R. 1570, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 189; Gray v. Darlington, 15 Wall. 63, 21 L. ed. 45; Bennet v. Baker, 15 Wall. 67, 1 Biss. 461, 466, Fed. Cas. No. 2,668; note; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Page, Lynch v. Turrish, 247 U. S. 221, 62 L. ed. 1087, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 537;. Mercer v. Buchanan, 132 Fed. 508, 70 C. C. A. 680, 137 Fed. 1019; Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 158 U. S. 601, 637, 39 L. ed. 1108, 1125, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 912; Graham's Estate, 198 Pa. 216, 47 Atl. 1108; Neel's Estate, 207 Pa. 446, 56 Atl. 950; Re Gerry, 103 N. Y. 450, 9 N. E. 235; Thayer v. Burr, 201 N. Y. 157, 94 N. E. 604; Boardman v. Mansfield, 79 Conn. 634, 12 L.R.A. (N.S.) 793, 118 Am. St. Rep. 178, 66 Atl. 169; Carpenter v. Perkins, 83 Conn. 20, 74 Atl. 1062; Outcalt v. Appleby, 36 N. J. Eq. 78; Parker v. Johnson, 37 N. J. Eq. 368; Guthrie v. Akers, 157 Ky. 649, 163 S. W. 1117; Slocum v. Ames, 19 R. I. 401, 36 Atl. 1127; Smith v. Hooper, 95 Md. 16, 51 Atl. 844; Re Armitage [1893] 3 Ch. 346, 63 L. J. Ch. N. S. 110, 7 R. 290, 69 L. T. N. S. 619; 28 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, 2d ed. 917; 39 Cyc. 444; 40 Cyc. 1788; Assets Co. v. Forbes (1897) Court of Exchequer, 3 Tax Cas. 542, 548, 24 Rettie, 578. 586; Scoble v. Secretary of State [1903] A. C. 299, 72 L. J. K. B. N. S. 617, 51 Week. Rep. 675, 89 L. T. N. S. 1, 19 Times L. R. 550, affirming [1903] 1 K. B. 494, 72 L. J. K. B. N. S. 215, 67 J. P. 106, 51 Week. Rep. 580, 88 L. T. N. S. 144, 19 Times L. R. 244; Californian Copper Syndicate v. Harris (1904 Exch. Scot.) 5 Tax Cas. 159; Commissioners of Taxn. v. Mooney [1907] Solicitor General Frierson argued the cause and filed a brief for defendant in error: A. C. 350, 76 L. J. P. C. N. S. 64, 97 L. | 482, 486, 19 L. ed. 278, 280; Stratton's T. N. S. 189, 23 Times L. R. 670; Stevens Independence v. Howbert, 231 U. S. 399, v. Hudson's Bay Co. 5 Tax Cas. 424, 25 414, 58 L. ed. 285, 291, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. Times L. R. 709, 101 L. T. N. S. 96; 136; Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U. S. 197, Tebrau (Johore) Rubber Syndicate v. 212, 47 L. ed. 1016, 1020, 23 Sup. Ct. Farmer [1910] S. C. 906, 47 Scot. L. R. Rep. 787, 12 Am. Crim. Rep. 465; 816, 5 Tax Cas. 658; Commissioner of Church of the Holy Trinity v. United Taxes v. Melbourne Trust [1914] A. C. States, 143 U. S. 457, 459, 36 L. ed. 226, 1010, 30 Times L. R. 685; Pontifex, 228, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 511; Pickett v. Canadian Income Tax, p. 23; Breadner, United States, 216 U. S. 456, 461, 54 L. Business Profits War Tax Act & Income ed. 566, 569, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 265; Tax Act, p. 18; Bedwell, Australasian Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 77, 44 Judicial Dict. 1920, p. 76; Mooney v. L. ed. 969, 984, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747; Commissioner of Taxn. (1905) 3 Co. L. United States v. Palmer, 3 Wheat. 610, R. (Austr.) 221, affirmed in [1907] A. C. 631, 4 L. ed. 471, 477. 342, 76 L. J. P. C. N. S. 64, 97 L. T.N. S. 189, 23 Times L. R. 670; Webb v. Australian Deposit & Mortg. Bank, 11 Co. L. R. (Austr.) 227; Bohemians Club v. Acting Federal Comr. of Taxn. 24 C. L. R. (Austr.) 334; McLachlan v. Commissioner of Taxes (1912) South Australian L. Rep. 138; Shields (Public Officer for Bank of Adelaide) v. Commissioner of Taxes (1912) South Australian L. Rep. 175; Barnes, Income Tax Practise in South Africa, 1919, pp. 137140; Commissioner of Taxes v. Booyesen's Estate, South African L. Rep. [1918] App. Div. 576; Smith v. Westinghouse Brake Co. 2 Tax Cas. 357; Inland Revenue v. Western S. S. Co. 44 Scot. L. R. 715; Royal Ins. Co. v. Watson, 3 Tax Cas. 500; Stott v. Hoddinott, 7 Tax Cas. 85; Watney v. Musgrave, 1 Tax Cas. 272; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co. 247 U. S. 187, 62 L. ed. 1060, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 467; Gibbons v. Mahon, 136 U. S. 549, 34 L. ed. 525, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1057; Brewster v. Walsh, 268 Fed. 207. The Income Tax Act of 1916 does not levy a tax upon the growth or increment in value of capital assets when realized by sale. 62 Gould v. Gould, 245 U. S. 151, 153, As the sale or conversion of the stock of the Goodrich Company represented an actual loss, no part of the proceeds was taxable as income of the taxpayer. Gould v. Gould, 245 U. S. 151, 153, 62 L. ed. 211, 213, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 53; United States v. Stever. 222 U. S. 167, 174, 56 L. ed. 145, 148, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 51; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co. 247 U. S. 185, 62 L. ed. 1059, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 467; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 207, 64 L. ed. 528, 9 A.L.R. 1570, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 189; United States v. Kirby, 7 Wall. Prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment, the word "income," as understood by the legislative, the executive, and the judicial branches of the government, included gains or profits derived from the sale of capital assets. 231 U. S. 399, 58 L. ed. 285, 34 Sup. Ct. Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 247 U. S. 179, 62 L. ed. 1054, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 136; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co. Co. 247 U. S. 189, 62 L. ed. 1061, 38 Sup. Rep. 467; Hays v. Gauley Mountain Coal Ct. Rep. 470; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, 64 L. ed. 521, 9 A.L.R. 1570, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 189. The cases under the Act of 1913, dealing with the distribution of corporate assets among stockholders, are in no way in conflict with the government's conten tion in this case. Lynch v. Hornby, 247 U. S. 339, 62 L. ed. 1149, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 543; Southern P. Co. v. Lowe, 247 U. S. 330. 62 L. ed. 1142, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 540; Peabody v. Eisner, 247 U. S. 347, 62 L. ed. 1152, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 546. Gains derived from the sale of capital assets constitute income when received. 231 U. S. 399, 58 L. ed. 285, 34 Sup. Ct. Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, Rep. 136; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co. 247 U. S. 179, 62 L. ed. 1054, 38 Sup. Ct. Co. 247 U. S. 189, 62 L. ed. 1061, 38 Sup. Rep. 467; Hays v. Gauley Mountain Coal Ct. Rep. 470; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, 64 L. ed. 521, 9 A.L.R. 1570, 247 U. S. 339, 62 L. ed. 1149, 38 Sup. Ct. 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 189; Lynch v. Hornby, Rep. 543; Southern P. Co. v. Lowe, 247 U. S. 330, 62 L. ed. 1142, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 540; Peabody v. Eisner, 247 U. S. 347, 62 L. ed. 1152, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 546. Messrs. T. P. Gore and Hoke Smith filed a brief as amici curiæ: Congress and the states did not intend Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, 64 L. ed. 521, 9 A.L.R. 1570, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 189. The 16th Amendment was framed and adopted, relying on Gray v. Darlington, 15 Wall. 63, 21 L. ed. 45. to subject increase in value of capital to | Pa. 216, 47 Atl. 1108; Re Gerry, 103 a tax as income. N. Y. 445, 9 N. E. 235; Devenney v. Devenney, 74 Ohio St. 96, 77 N. E. 688; Whittingham v. Scofield, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 2444, 67 S. W. 846; Smith v. IIooper, 95 Md. 16, 51 Atl. 844; Lauman v. Foster, 157 Iowa, 275, 50 L.R.A. (N.S.) 531, 135 S. W. 14; Slocum v. Ames, 19 R. I. 401, 36 Atl. 1127; Carpenter v. Perkins, 83 Conn. 11, 74 Atl. 1062; Guthrie v. Akers, 157 Ky. 649, 163 S. W. 1117; Jordan v. Jordan, 111 Me. 124, 88 Atl. 390; First Nat. Bank v. Mulholland, 123 Miss. 13, 13 A.L.R. 1000, 85 So. 111. · The 16th Amendment does not enlarge the meaning of the words as used in the Act of 1867. Lynch v. Turrish, 247 U. S. 221, 62 L. ed. 1087, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 537. Prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment, the English courts had definitely decided that the profits derived from the sale of capital investments at an advance over cost were still capital, and did not produce income. Californian Copper Syndicate v. Harris (1904; Exch. Scot.) 5 Tax Cas. 159; Commissioners of Taxn. V. Mooney [1907] A. C. 342, 76 L. J. P. C. N. S. 64, 97 L. T. N. S. 189, 23 Times L. R. 670; Stevens v. Hudson's Bay Co. (1909, C. A.) 5 Tax Cas. 424, 436, 437, 25 Times L. R. 709, 101 L. T. N. S. 96; Tebrau (Johore) Rubber Syndicate v. Farmer [1910] S. C. 906, 5 Tax Cas. 658, 664, 665. The same rule of construction has been adopted in Canada, Australia, and South Africa. Pontifex, Canadian Income Tax, 23; Bedell, Australasian Judicial Dict. 76; Barnes, Income Tax Practice in South Africa, 137-140; Assets Co. v. Forbes, 3 Tax Cas. 542, 548; Scoble v. Secretary of State [1903] A. C. 299, 72 L. J. K. B. N. S. 617, 51 Week. Rep. 675, 89 L. T. N. S. 1, 19 Times L. R. 550, affirming [1903] 1 K. B. 494, 72 L. J. K. B. N. S. 215, 67 J. P. 106, 51 Week. Rep. 580, 88 L. T. N. S. 144, 19 Times L. R. 244; Commissioners of Taxes v. Melbourne Trust [1914] A. C. 1010, 30 Times L. R. 685; Webb v. Australian Deposit Bank, 11 C. L. R. (Austr.) 227; McLachlan v. Commissioner of Taxes, South Australian Law Rep. 138; Bohemian Club v. Acting Commissioner, 24 C. L. R. 334; Sheils v. Commissioner of Taxes, South Australian L. Rep. 175; Commissioner of Taxes v. Booyesen's Estate, South African L. Rep. (1918) App. Div. 576; Northern Assur. Co. v. Russell, 2 Tax Cas. 577; Scottish Invest. Co. v. Forbes, 3 Tax Cas. 231. The decisions by the state court show that increase in value of investments is not changed from capital to income by sale. 39 Cyc. 444; Ex parte Humbird, 114 Md. 627, 80 Atl. 209; Parker v. Johnson, 37 N. J. Eq. 366; Graham's Estate, 198 Mr. Justice Clarke delivered the opinion of the court: The plaintiff in error sued the defendant, a collector of internal revenue, to recover income taxes assessed in 1920 for the year 1916, and paid under protest to avoid penalties. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and the constitutional validity of a law of the United States is so involved that the case is properly here by writ of error. Towne v. Eisner, 245 U. S. 418, 62 L. ed. 372, L.R.A.1918D, 254, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 158. Two transactions are involved. (1) In 1912 the plaintiff in error purchased 1,000 shares of the capital stock of a mining company, for which he paid $500. It is averred that the stock was worth $695 on March 1, 1913, and that it was sold in March, 1916, for $13,931.22. The tax which the plaintiff in error seeks to recover was assessed on the difference between the [534] value of the stock on March 1, 1913, and the amount for which it was sold. (2) The plaintiff in error, being the owner of shares of the capital stock of another corporation, in 1912 exchanged them for stock in a reorganized company, of the then value of $291,600. It is averred and admitted that on March 1, 1913, the value of this stock was $148,635.50, and that it was sold in 1916 for $269,346.25. Although it is thus apparent that the stock involved was of less value on March 1, 1913, than when it was acquired, and that it was ultimately sold at a loss to the owner, nevertheless the collector assessed the tax on the difference between the value on March 1, 1913, and the amount for which it was sold. The plaintiff in error seeks to recover the whole of these two assessments. The same contention is made with respect to each of these payments as was made in No. 608, Merchants' Loan & T. Co. v. Smietanka, this day decided [255 from by the vendor; and we therefore agree with the Solicitor General that since no gain was realized on this investment by the plaintiff in error, no tax should have been assessed against him. Section 2 (c) is applicable only where a gain over the original capital investment has been realized after March 1, 1913, from a sale or other disposition of property. U. S. 509, ante, 751, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. | extent only that gains are derived there386], viz., that the amounts realized from the sales of the stocks were, in their inherent nature, capital as distinguished from income, being an increment in value of the securities while owned and held as an investment, and therefore not taxable under the Revenue Act of September 8, 1916 (39 Stat. at L. 756, chap. 463), as amended October 3, 1917 (40 Stat. at L. 300, chap. 63, Comp. Stat. § 6336aa, Fed. Stat. Anno. Supp. 1918, p. 336), or under any constitutional law. With respect to the first payment. It is plain that this assessment was on the profit accruing after March 1, 1913, the effective date of the act, realized to the owner by the sale after deducting his capital investment. The question involved is ruled by No. 608, supra, and the amount was properly taxed. It results that the judgment of the District Court as to the first assessment, as we have described it, is affirmed; that as to the second assessment it is reversed; and the case [536] is remanded to that court for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion. Reversed in part. Affirmed in part. Mr. Justice Holmes and Mr. Justice the court, concur only in the judgment. Brandeis, because of prior decisions of As to the second payment. The government confesses error in the judgment with respect to this assessment. stock was sold in the year for which the tax was assessed for $22,253.75 less than JAMES J. WALSH, Collector of Internal The its value when it was [535] acquired, but for $120,710.75 more than its value on March 1, 1913, and the tax was assessed on the latter amount. Revenue, Plff. in Err., V. FREDERICK F. BREWSTER. (See S. C. Reporter's ed. 536-539.) Error to district court Federal question constitutionality of income tax. The act under which the assessment was made provides that the net income of a taxable person shall include "gains, profits, and income derived from . 1. The Federal Supreme Court has jusales, or dealings in property, whether risdiction of a writ of error to a district real or personal or gains or court to review a judgment in favor of a profits and income derived from any taxpayer in a suit to recover back Federal source whatever." 39 Stat. at L. 757, income taxes where the claim to recover i chap. 463, Comp. Stat. § 6336b, Fed. based upon the contention that the fund Stat. Anno. Supp. 1918, p. 312; 40 Stat. | taxed was not income within the scope of at L. 300, 307, chap. 63, Comp. Stat. §. S. Const., 16th Amend., and that to con 6336 m, Fed Stat. Anno. Supp. 1918, p. 349. Section 2 (c) of this same act provides that "for the purpose of ascertaining the gain derived from the sale or other disposition of property, real, personal, or mixed, acquired before March 1, 1913, the fair market price or value of such property as of March 1, 1913, shall be the basis for determining the amount of such gain derived." And the definition of "income" approved by this court is: "A gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profits gained through sale or conversion of capital assets." Eisner v. Macomber; 252 U. S. 189, 207, 64 L. ed. 521, 528, 9 A.L.R. 1570, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 189. It is thus very plain that the statute imposes the income tax on the proceeds of the sale of personal property to the Note.-On direct review in Federal Supreme Court of judgments of district or circuit courts-see notes to Gwin v. United States, 46 L. ed. U. S. 741; B. Altman & Co. v. United States, 56 L. ed. U. S. 894, and Berkman v. United States, 63 L. ed. U. S. 877. As to constitutionality of income taxsee notes to Alderman v. Wells, 27 L.R.A. (N.S.) 864, and State ex rel. Bolens v. Frear, L.R.A.1915B, 569. As to income tax on sales of property -see note to State ex rel. Bundy v. Ny. gaard, L.R.A.1917E, 566. On stock dividends as income see notes to Holbrook v. Holbrook, 12 L.R.A. (N.S.) 768; Newport Trust Co. v. Van Rensselaer, 35 L.R.A.(N.S.) 563; Re Osborne, 50 L.R.A.(N.S.) 510; Re Heaton, L.R.A.1916D, 211; Trefry v. Putnam, L.R.A.1917F, 814; Towne v. Eisner, L.R.A.1918D, 254; and Eisner v. Macomber, 9 A.L.R. 1594. 255 U. S. |