Volume 260 — United States Reports

Held: that the remaining . income, retained by the hospital, was not taxable'. P. 8. 266 Fed. 676 , affirmed.

Held: that the act would be unconstitutional under the decision in United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U. S. 394 , was not justified. There is another distinction between the Jin Fuey Moy Case and this. In that case, which was under the Act of 1914, it was intimated that the persons affected by the act received definition from the requirement of registration.

Held: that due process of law did not require that he be repaid for necessarily incident damages. P. 30. 263 Pa. St. 158 , affirmed.

Held: not to have acquiesced in the change; P. 68. 4. A mail-carriage contractor who, under duress of the Post Office Department,' performs service not called for by his contract, is entitled to recover, in the Court of Claims, the reasonable value of such service, including a fair profit. P. 69. 56 Ct. Clms. 15, reversed.

Held: that the deed was to be interpreted in conformity with the act, and that the act carried title to land in the river bed out to the main channel. Pp. 82, 87: 2. Congress has power to make grants of lands below high water mark of navigable waters in a Territory, to carry out public purposes appropriate to the objects for which the United States holds the Territory. P. 83. Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1 , 47. 3.

Held: in this case, that delay of the Government in furnishing necessary specifications as contemplated by a contract for the manufacture of air-plane motors of a foreign model, due to an honest but mistaken belief, shared by the contractor, that the model was perfected and adequate specifications in existence, was not an actionable breach of .representation, in view of the conduct and dealings of the parties for the…

Held: fox the jury. P. Í36. 6. Live mussels in a stream'áre not part of. the realty within the meaning of Rev. Stats. Mo. 1909, § 5448; 1919, § 4242, allowing triple damages in certain cases for the digging up and carrying away *128 of stones, mineral, etc., “ or other substance or material being part of the realty.” P. 137. 7'.

Held: upon the circumstances stated in the opinion,' that the railroad company, (which maintained the wires and the bridge framework,) could not be deemed liable upon the theory of license or invitation. P. 143. United Zinc Co. v. Britt, 258 U. S. 268 . 271 Fed. 419 , reversed.

Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174 (1922), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court unanimously held that public schools could constitutionally exclude unvaccinated students from attending, even if there was not an ongoing outbreak. In the case, the school district of San Antonio, Texas enacted an ordinance that prohibited any child from attending a school within the district unless they had been vaccinated against smallpox. One parent of a student who had been excluded, Rosalyn Zucht, sued on the basis that there was not a public health emergency. Justice Louis Brandeis wrote for the unanimous court that requiring students to be vaccinated was a justified use of "police power" to maintain public health and safety.

Takao Ozawa v. United States, 260 U.S. 178 (1922), was a US legal proceeding. The United States Supreme Court found Takao Ozawa, a Japanese American who was born in Japan but had lived in the United States for 20 years, ineligible for naturalization. In 1914, Ozawa filed for United States citizenship under the Naturalization Act of 1906. This act allowed only "free white persons" and "persons of African nativity or persons of African descent" to naturalize. Ozawa claimed that Japanese people should be properly classified as "free white persons".

Yamashita v. Hinkle, 260 U.S. 199 (1922), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that upheld the constitutionality of the state of Washington's Alien Land Law. The law prohibited Asians from owning property. Washington's attorney general maintained that in order for Japanese people to fit in, their "marked physical characteristics" would have to be destroyed, that "the Negro, the Indian and the Chinaman" had already demonstrated assimilation was not possible for them. The U.S. Supreme Court heard the case, brought by Takuji Yamashita, and affirmed this race-based prohibition, citing its immediately prior issued decision in Takao Ozawa v. United States.

Held: That W’s contract, made without reference to nationality or location of the ship or to foreign law, was governed by, and valid under, the law of New York, and that the owner’s disability to consummate the transaction was not a defense to W’s action for his commission, even if, under the British law, the contract of sale was void. P. 203. 272 Fed. 56 , affirmed.

Held: that the condition was an authoritátive determination of what was reasonably necessary to insure free and safe navigation, upon which the company was entitled to rely; and that where, many years later, the Government, by dredging, lowered the bed 'and surface of the river so that stumps of the piles that had constituted the old piers protruded above the new bed, forming an obstruction which damaged a vessel, the…

Liberty Oil Co. v. Condon National Bank, 260 U.S. 235 (1922), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with civil procedure and the nature of taking an appeal from the United States District Court.

Held: where it was argued that anthracite being virtually confined in production to Pennsylvania but largely consumed by the necessities of other States, the tax law in question was advocated by the Pennsylvania governor as a means of levying tribute on the other-state consumption. 5. A state act regulating interstate commerce is invalid, whatever the degree of interference. P. 259. 6.

Held: that one of the corporations; which held shares of the other, was an indispensable party as fo so much of the bill as sought to enjoin it from voting them and to enjoin the other from permitting it so- to.do, but not as to so much as sought to enjoin the other from entering into or consummating the proposed consolidation. ' P.285: 17.

Held: that the Government had elected its remedy, • and therefore could not afterwards maintain an action at law to recover damages for- the fraud. P. 294. Questions certified by the Circuit Court of Appeals, arising upon review of a judgment of the District- Court which dismissed the complaint in an action brought by the United States to recover damages for fraud in procuring patents to public land.

Held: that where a payment made by the contractor as a premium on its bond to secure the performance of the contract was thus approved and repaid as part of the cost of the work, the decision and action of the officer were conclusive, and that the Comptroller of the Treasury was without power to deduct the amount from other moneys due the contractor, upon the ground that the expense was not among those for which the…

Held: that there was no basis for the claim that the Government had appropriated the land and impliedly agreed to pay for it.

Held: however, that there were important differences between thé two laws with regard to the measure of damages and otherwise, and that as the case was tried under the act of Congress, and as on the evidence the highest amount that could have been recovered under the federal act was $16,000, the plaintiff must remit all above that amount if she would retain her judgment, although under the state law she could have…

United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377 (1922), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Eighteenth Amendment did not invalidate state laws consistent with it, so state alcohol charges are just as valid as federal charges. The separate sovereigns doctrine means both the state and the federal government can file charges for the same conduct. This was the first time that the separate sovereigns doctrine was squarely upheld by the Supreme Court as an exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that whether a regulatory act constitutes a taking requiring compensation depends on the extent of diminution in the value of the property. The decision thereby started the doctrine of regulatory taking. The Takings Clause originally applied only when the government physically seized or occupied property. Prior to 1922, American courts followed a clear rule: regulation of land was not a taking. Rather, it was simply an exercise of the government’s police power to protect the public health, safety, welfare, and morals. Pennsylvania Coal also established the diminution-of-value test, in contrast to other tests, such as the permanent physical occupations test of Loretto v.

Held: reading these with other provisions of the lease and with the .written proposal therefor, and considering the subject-matter— (1) That the average of 9,000 head was- for each year separately, to be paid for by the minimum rental, and that the additional charge of $4.50 per head applied to all in excess of that average, and not merely to any excess over 11,500 head grazed at any one timé.

Held: that the proviso includes a case in which possession and work, began before the date of the act no less than cases in which ■ they were subsequent. P. 434. 5.

Held: that the .charterer was under a primary obligation not to suffer any lien to';be imposed. P. 489. Questions certified by the Circuit Court of Appeals; arising upon an appeal from a judgment of the District Court, in admiralty, upholding a claim of right to a maritime lien, in a suit in personam brought against the United States and the receiver of a ship corporation, under the Suits in Admiralty Act..

Held: “The business of the solicitors is to send their customers’ advertisements to be posted on billboards in various towns and cities throughout the country.

Held: where the allowances were less than 15 per cent, of the invested capital. P.-514, 269 Fed. 58 , affirmed. Error to and appeal from á judgment of the District Court sustaining a demurrer and dismissing the complaint in an action against the United States to recover taxes. *513 Mr. M. Ham-pton Todd, with whom Mr. Percy L. Housel- was on the briefs, for plaintiff in error and appellant.

Held: (а) That the limitation began to run when a homesteader submitted his final proofs,'paid the fees and commissions then due, and obtained the receiver’s receipt therefor, although the proofs were not passed upon and no register’s certificate was issued. ■ P. 537.

Held: insufficient in some instances . and sufficient in others. P. 638.. *608 In this suit the court first decided that the boundary between Oklahoma and Texas is along the south bank of Red River ( 256 U. S. 70 ), and made an interlocutory decree for the taking of evidence and for a further hearing to determine' what constitutes. the south bank and the proper location of the boundary line along it ( 256 U. S. 608 ).

Held: Not a contract that the Department would use the method, but an option, or at most a conditional obligation subject to be terminated by the Department when the tost proved unsatisfactory. P. 675. ‘ (b) By remaining silent’ and inactive for five years after receiving notice from the bureau that the relations between them were terminated, G acquiesced.- P. 675. 2.

Held: that such sales >were an infringement of the plaintiff’s trade marks and that a preliminary injunction was proper, under §§ 17 and 19 of the Trade Mark Act. P. 691. 275 Fed. 539 , reversed. Certiorari to a decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals reversing an order of the District Court, granting a preliminary injunction in a suit to restrain infringement of trade marks. Mr. Hans v. Briesen for petitioner.

<p>Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.</p>

<p>On petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Mississippi.</p>