Volume 257 — United States Reports

Held: against the dissent of Mr. Justice Story, that the personal liability was gone. Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. 236 . Later statutes however recognize suits against collectors in such cases, and the plaintiff contends that they should be construed to create a new statutory liability attached to the office and passing to successors, as was held in this case, the formal defendant being saved from harm by the United States.

Held: That, until such new -suit was begun; the ordinance was established by the decision as the lawful and exclusive measure of the rates chargeable bj’' the plaintiff gas company. P. 9. (2) That the original suit did not end until the going down of the mandate from this court. P. 9.

Held: or by any such laws hereafter enacted which may be adopted by general rules of any such circuit or district court,” the state law applicable is that which was in force when the act of which § 916 was a part was originally enacted, viz, June 1, 1872, in the absence of general' rules adopting later state law. P. 19. 6.

Held: Not anticipated by the earlier Firchau patent, comprising two hooks or pins attached to oppositely rotating discs and passing each other in concentric circles. P. 32.

<p>ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.</p> <p>Writ of error under the Criminal Appeals Act, to review a judgment quashing an indictment. See post, 42.</p>

<p>A conspiracy to purchase war savings certificates from their owners, remove the stamps therefrom, attach them to other, blank war savings certificates to be illegally procured, write upon the latter the names of persons other than the conspirators, and present them, so stamped and signed, at a post office of the United States for payment, is a conspiracy to defraud the United States (Crim. Code, § 37) and to commit the offense of altering, with intent to defraud, obligations of the United States (Crim. Code, §§ 37, 148.) P. 45. United States v. Sacks, ante, 37.</p>

The plaintiff in error brought this suit in a circuit court of Illinois to enjoin the City of Springfield from operating its plant for the production and sale of electricity to private consumers without having first filed rates, etc., as required by the Public Utilities Act of the State (Laws 1913, p. 459). A decree dismissing the bill was ultimately affirmed by the state Supreme Court, whose decision is brought here by the present writ of error.

Held: that he had abandoned his title and could not recover. P. 76. 53 Ct. Clms. 463; 55 id. 188, affirmed. Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims in a suit to recover the emoluments of an office accruing after appellant’s unlawful removal from it. See also post, 77-, 82. *72 Mr. William. E. Russell, with whom Mr. L. T. Michener and Mr. P. G: Michener were on the brief, fouappellant.

Held: That he was not entitled to official pay from the time of liis removal to the time of his reinstatement. P. 80. Nicholas v. United States, ante, 71. (2) The power to determine the number of customs inspectors and to appoint and remove them -was lodged with the Secretary of the Treasury. P. 81.

Held: That the removal was an act of discretion not subject to revision by the court. P. 84. *83 (2) That the power of appointment and removal in the case was constitutionally lodged in. the Secretary of the Treasury; the President’s order could not and was not intended to operate as a reinstatement, but merely restored E’s eligibility to appointment. P. 84.

Error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals which affirmed a judgment for damages entered upon a verdict in the District Court, in an action to enforce a reparation order pf the Interstate Commerce Commission. See s. c. 242 U. S. 89.

Held: that a motion to remand for want of jurisdiction merely specifying -as grounds that the plaintiff and the coemployee were citizens of the same State and that the object of the removal was to delay the trial, did not put in issue the facts averred in the petition, and that the question whether an employer and a co-employee might be jointly liable, under the state law, for the same injury, although the liability of…

Held: that its order was not arbitrary or unreasonable. P. 117. 274 Fed. 372 , affirmed. *115 Appeal from a decree of the District Court dismissing the bill in a suit to set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission. / Mr. Luther M. Walter, with whom Mr. John S. Burch-more was on the brief, for appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims, against the claimant, in an action to recover for extra mail-carriage service.

Held: That, since the ginning was merely manufacture," and the. seeds were not in interstate commerce until purchased and com *130 mitted to a carrier, the gins were not instrumentalities of interstate commerce and the prohibition of their operation did not infringe the company’s rights under the commerce clause. P. 135.

Held: That allegations that the water percolated through the - ground, due to lack of proper lining in the Government’s canals and ditches, the manner of their construction and the natural con *139 ditions,- were not intended to set up negligence but merely to show causal connection between the project and the flooding, and hence did not characterize the cause of action as ex delicto. P. 144.

Held: construing it in the light of legislative .history and administrative construction, that the use “for purposes of a public nature ” must be “ subsidiary to the main purpose of irrigation.” P. 152. 4.

United States v. Phellis, 257 U.S. 156 (1921), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that shares in a subsidiary corporation issued to stockholders in the parent corporation were taxable as income.

assessments under the Income Tax Law of October 3, 1913.; and the Sixteenth Amendment. In No. 535, the action was by the United States, to collect the tax, against the plaintiff in error Rockefeller. In No. 536, the plaintiffs in error, having paid the tax under protest, sued the collector to recover the amount with interest.

American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Central Trades Council, 257 U.S. 184 (1921), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that picketing by more the one person at an entrance or exit to a struck business was not protected by the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914. The court said that it was inherently a form of intimidation no matter how orderly the picket was. This case was later superseded by cases like Thornhill v. Alabama (1940), which held that picketing was protected under free speech and the First Amendment.

Held: that the service was void. Chipman, Ltd. v. Thomas B. Jeffery Co., 251 TJ. S. 373. Affirmed. Writ of error to review a judgment of the District Court dismissing an action against a foreign corporation, upon the ground that the service of process upon its statutory agent did not give jurisdiction over the person of the corporation.

For a fuller statement of the case see the report, of the case below. Their principal contentions may be summarized as follows : The statute of Virginia, known as the Oyster Law. (Acts 1910, c. 343) contains only two sections applicable to the case at bar, to wit, §§ Í5 and 39.

The transactions involved were exports. The taxes in question were not legalized by the Act of Congress of July 1, 1916, 39 Stat. 286; nor by the Act of June 4, 1918, 40 Stat. 597. The Act of Congress .of June 5, 1920, 41 Stat. 1025, can not have the effect of confiscating the judgments under review.

Held: in a case where the injury and death occurred within the State where the libel was brought and whose statutes, creating the cause of action and providing -a limitation, were applied. P. 242. Judgment Of District Court reversed. Certiorari to review a case pending in the Circuit Court of Appeals on appeal from the District Court in admiralty.

<p>APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.</p> <p>Appeal from a judgment rejecting a claim for a refund of legacy taxes.</p>

Held: That the bank was chargeable with notice of the parties to whom loans had been made and the specific character of assets; (b) that the representations to be implied from the reports could not be taken as continuing after they had been superseded by later reports; (c) that the misrepresentations of value imported by the valuations on the books were not a concealment of the cause of action after new directors, not in…

Held: that a tax on the transportation, in so far as measured by the quantities produced in but moving out of West Virginia, was void under the Commerce Clause. P. 27Í. 87 W. Va. 396 , reversed; writ of certiorari denied. *266 Error to a judgment sustaining a tax in a suit brought by the plaintiff in error to restrain its enforcement. See the next case, post, 277.

<p>1. A writ of error sustained, following Eureka Pipe Line Co. v. Hallanan, ante, 265. P. 280.</p> <p>2. Natural gas, collected and purchased by a pipe line company within a State and moving through its pipes, and the pipes of other companies to which it sells it, in continuous streams destined beyond the State, is a subject of interstate commerce, the transportation of which the State may not tax. P. '280.</p> <p>3. Held,'Ih&i the interstate character of the gas so destined was not affected hy the right of transporting companies to divert to local destinations, or by the fact that smaller quantities "for local delivery ■ were commingled with the other and the proportions between the two were not precisely fixed. P. 281.</p>

Held: that the transaction was in interstate commerce, notwithstanding the contract was made and to be performed in Kentucky, and that the possibility that the purchaser might change its mind after delivery and sell the grain in Kentucky or consign it to some other place in that State, did not affect the essential character of the transaction. P. 292. 185 Ky. 386 , reversed.

<p>1. The proceeding which the Act of August 13, 1894, c. 280, 28'Stat. 278, as amended February 24, 1905, c. 778, 33 Stat. 811, permits to be brought, in the name of the United States, upon the bond of a public contractor, to satisfy private claims for labor and materials, is a single action at law in which the several claimants are not entitled as of right to separate trials. P. 307. '</p> <p>2. In actions at law it is only in exceptional instances and for special and persuasive reasons that distinct causes of action, asserted in the same case, may be allowed separate trials; 'and the allowance rests largely in the court’s discretion. P. 308.</p>

IN EQUITY. Granting leave to intervene. The motion of the Grand Oil & Developing Company, submitted December 9, 1921, is granted' to the extent that said company is hereby given leave to file a petition in intervention setting up its rights and claims in and to any portion of the territory in dispute by reason of the controversy as to . the location of the boundary line between the States of Oklahoma and Texas; without waiver of the right of said company to object to the…

<p>APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.</p> <p> Order, vacating stay, granting injunction pending appeal and requiring bond. </p>

Held: that the bill stated a plain case of conspiracy and actionable wrong. P. 327. 3.

Held: therefore, that the combination did not violate the Sherman Act. See also State v. Eastern Coal Co., 29 R. I. 254 .

Held: that these, or any other equivalent cooperative means, should b.e enjoined, upon an order of the Federal Trade Commission, as an unfair method of competition. P. 454. 264 Fed. 885 , reversed. Certiorari to review a judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals setting aside an order of the Federal Trade Commission.

the court below affirming a decree of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, which dismissed the bill in a suit against the Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of the General Land Office for a mandatory injunction.

<p>1. An action against a consyl-general, upon his official bond, (Rev. Stats., § 1697, as amended,) for damage caused by his failure to perform his official duties touching the personal property of a decedent, can not be maintained by one who is not the personal representative but merely a possible owner. of a share of the decedent’s estate. P. 468.</p> <p>2. A declaration alleging that an American citizen, dying in China, left valuable real estate, standing in his name in the land records of the United States Consulate at Shanghai, and that the consul-general there, despite his duty to conserve the decedent’s estate, caused one to whom he had illegally granted alleged letters testamentary, to convey it to a third party without consideration, although the deceased had not devised it, and that such assumption of jurisdiction on the part of the said consul-general, though illegal and void, had the effect of dissipating a valuable part of the estate to .the consequent loss of the decedent’s brother, the plaintiff,— states no cause .of action against the consul-general on his official bond. P. .-468.</p>

•Tipis was a proceeding in admiralty to recover damages for personal injuries resulting to an employee. The questions are determined on a certificate from the court below stating the facts. Rohde’s contract of employment required services as a carpenter and joiner in the construction of a ship before and after launching; and neither before nor after launching is such work maritime in character.

Held: that the mileage basis (declared unconstitutional in Wallace v. Hines, 253 U. S. 66 ), was intended to be the exclusive basis for computing the assessments of such a railroad company, and that assessments based on the ratio of-the value of its railroad within the State to that of its entire railroad were not authorized by the statute. P. 482. 4.

Held: where ownership was acquired, by purchase of warehouse receipts, (a) before the ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment, (b) after the ratification'and before the effective date of the Prohibition Act, and (e) after that date. P. 498. Affirmed.

■ The judgment was in a proceeding initiated by his appeal to a court of first instance from the action of the State Auditor.

Held: That the instruction of the Secretary of the Treasury to this effect could not be sustained as a discretionary determination that the movement of merchandise at the place did not justify maintaining customs service on the days in question. P. 514.

Held: • Where there are no islands in the boundary rivers, the line is on'the water midway between the main banks when the water is at ordinary stage. P. 521. (6) Where there are islands, it is midway . between the island bank and the South Carolina shore, with the water at ordinary stage. P. 522.

Held: The allowance to, the building contractor was not a gratuity but an alteration of his contract based on a moral consideration. P. 526. (2) Claimants were entitled to their percentage on the additional amount so paid, since their equity was equally as strong and the words of their contract permitted. P. 528. 55 Ct. Clms. 215, affirmed.

' Error to a decree of the District Court enjoining the appellant from revoking the license of the appellee corporation to do business in Arkansas. It is alleged in the bill that the complainant is engaged in interstate commerce. The averment is overcome by the denial'in the answer. Iowa v: Illinois, 147 U. S. 7. The act in controversy is not repugnant to the Constitution as an undue requirement or regulation of a foreign corporation not engaged'in interstate commerce.

<p>In an importer’s protest, under par. N of the Tariff Act of 1913, against a collector’s decision on classification of goods, it is not necessary to set up the similitude clause (par. 386), which merely prescribes a rule of construction applicable to every paragraph of the tariff imposing duty on specifically described articles. P. 538.'</p>

Held: that the Senate, which confirmed the nomination, must be presumed to have known the confirmation would fill the legal complement of such officers and to have joined in the removal. P. 545. 4. To allow pay for an officer whose place has been filled by nomination and confirmation, there must be special legislative authority. P. 546. 5.

- Appeal from a decree of the District Court dismissing a bill brought by appellants against the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission to annul an order of the latter authorizing an increase of intrastate railroad rates. Various carriers intervened and became appellees.

The District Court had first sustained a demurrer to the declaration, but later, pursuant to a mandate of reversal, (see 268 Fed. 230), overruled it, and rendered judgment against the present petitioner, who stood upon the demurrer. The case then went again to the court below and the judgment was affirmed.

<p>Error to the District Court pf the United States for the Western District of Virginia.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Texas.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Cotirt of the State of Nebraska.</p>

<p>Error to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington.</p>

<p>Error to the Court of Appeals of the State of Kentucky.</p>

<p>Error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.</p>

<p>Error to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.</p>

<p>Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan.</p>

<p>Error to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.</p>

<p>Error to-the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.-'</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan.</p>

<p>Error to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.</p>

<p>Error to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.</p>

<p>On certificate from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of New York.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio.</p>

<p>Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of - the United States for the District of New Mexico.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Kansas.</p>

<p>Error to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.</p>

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Mississippi.</p>