Volume 261 — United States Reports

Held: that the State Tax Commission might be substituted for the State Comptroller whose functions have been transferred to it, and the State Attorney General for his predecessor in that office. P. 5.

Held: therefore, that the proper plaintiff in a suit for past infringements was not the present owner of the patent, and that he did not acquire the right to bring suits for prior infringements merely by the conveyance of the full title to the patent and its enjoyment. This case was followed by that of Gordon v. Anthony, on the Circuit, reported in 16 Blatchf. 234 ; s. c. 10 Fed. Cas. 773, No. 5,605.

Held: a new and useful invention. P. 52. 2. The prompt and general adoption of the improvement, with in-. creased productivity of the machines to which it was applied, is strong evidence of its novelty and usefulness. P. 56. 3. Previous adoption of a comparatively slight pitch of the screen, but for another and distinct purpose, did not constitute anticipation of this invention. P. 58. 4.

Held: and that the representatives who can make application under § 307 to the Board are representatives engaged in the conference under1 § 301. Such a construction would give either side *83 an easy opportunity to defeat the operation of the act and to prevent the Labor Board from, considering any dispute.. It would tend to make the act unworkable.

Moore et al. v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 (1923), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled 6–2 that the defendants' mob-dominated trials deprived them of due process guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It reversed the district court's decision declining the petitioners' writ of habeas corpus.

Held: wh.ere the railroad right was not excepted in their grantor’s patent and certificate. 7.

Held: That a contract .of insurance made ■ between a mutual insurance company and a person domiciled in another State, through acceptance at the company’s .home office of an application received by mail, was a -contract made and to be performed in the State of'the company’s domicile; and (b) That the company could not be said to be doing business in the other State merely because one or more of its members, at its…

Lumiere v. Mae Edna Wilder, Inc., 261 U.S. 174 (1923), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held a person or corporation cannot file suits under the Copyright Act in areas in which they do not have an office and do no business.

United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 261 U.S. 204 (1923), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided that Bhagat Singh Thind, an Indian Sikh man who identified himself as an Aryan, was ineligible for naturalized citizenship in the United States. In 1919, Thind filed a petition for naturalization under the Naturalization Act of 1906 which allowed only "free white persons" and "aliens of African nativity and persons of African descent" to become United States citizens by naturalization.

Held: that, irrespective of the motive for granting the permit, the cause was moot, and, for that reason, the. judgment below should be reversed, with directions for dismissal of the petition for mandamus, without costs. P. 217. 50 App. D. C. 279 ; 270 Fed. 1019 , reversed.

Held: immediately attached free from the Indian title. In our opinion the possession of the property in question by these Indians was within the policy and with the implied consent of the Government.

Held: being necessary under the statutes of Connecticut in pleas “ to the jurisdiction, or in abatement, or both ” and that the condition was made applicable to the District Court by the Conformity Act (§ 914, Revised Statutes, United States).

Held: that the city, by not objecting to the suggestion in the Court of Appeals and by waiting three months before suing out a writ of error here, must be deemed to have accepted the assignment and consented to the judgment and that its writ of error must be dismissed. P. 298. 2.

Motion for leave to docket case and proceed in forma pauperis. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on an appeal from an order of the District Court dismissing a petition for habeas corpus. See 285 Fed. 632. ■

Appeal from an order of the District Court denying appellant’s application to be made a party defendant in an injunction suit. The order appealed from is a final order. Gay v. Hudson River Co., 184 Fed. 689; Matter of Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 129 U. S. 206; Brush Electric Co. v. Electric Imp. Co., 51 Fed. 557; La Bourgogne, 210 U. S. 95; Heike v. United States, 217 U. S. 423.

<p>APPEAL FROM THE COURT OE CLAIMS.</p> <p>Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims awarding a sum as ádditional pay to a yeoman of the Coast Guard.</p>

<p>Decided on the authority of United States v. Allen, ante, 317.</p>

Held: therefore, that a New York attachment suit against an Illinois surety company did not fall by reason of the company’s dissolution in proceedings in Illinois and lapse of time, claimed to have extinguished the corporation for all purposes. 271 Fed. 848 ," reversed.

Fox Film Corp. v. Knowles, 261 U.S. 326 (1923), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the statute intends that an executor, there being no widow, widower, or child, shall have the same right to renew a copyright for a second term as his testator might have exercised had he continued to survive.

In the first six cases, the taxes were paid and the actions brought by the Pullman Company. In the last of the cases, the taxes were paid while the business of the Company was under federal control, and the action brought by the Company and the Director General of Railroads.

<p>IN EQUITY.</p> <p>PARTIAL DECREE RELATING- TO STATE BOUNDARY, ENTERED</p>

This writ of error brings, in review a judgment of -the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, affirming a judgment of mandamus against the Secretary of the Interior commanding him to pay to the relators all • the moneys due their minor children, members of the Tribe of Osage Indians of Oklahoma, by reason of the distributions made under the Act of June 28, 1906, 34 Stat. 539, including their respective shares of bonus moneys paid the Secretary for oil leases made by…

<p>1: The Act ,ef June 15, 1917, c. 29, 40 .Stat. 188, in making a deficiency ..appropriation for “ pay at $100 per month for enlisted men in training for officers of .the Reserve Corps,” intended merely to abolish the discrimination existing between the pay then allowed enlisted men and that allowed civilians training in like circumstances; it was not a fixing of base pay. P. 367.</p> <p>2. Consequently, a. first class private in the Aviation Section of the Signal Enlisted Reserve Corps, who, before this act received $33 . per month as base pay and-50% additional for flight duty, under the Act of July 18, 1914, c. 186; 38 Stat. 516, was not entitled to any allowance for such duty hi addition to the monthly pay of $100. Id. . ,</p> <p>3. This provision for $100 pay was not continued beyond June 30, 1918, the limit of the Act of June 15, 1917, supra, making the appropriation.. P. 368.</p>

Held: under the circumstances,. void, as an undue interference with interstate commerce. P. 371. 290 Mo. 389 , reversed. Error to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Missouri affirming a judgment of the. State Circuit Court,- which affirmed, upon a writ of review obtained by the plaintiffs in error, an order of the defendant commission requiring the stopping of certain trains.

* Error to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Alabama which reversed a judgment of the State Circuit Court, in mandamus, requiring a state recording officer to record a mortgage without exacting the statutory tax. If the recording and registration statutes of Alabama be void, then defendant in error had no authority, and consequently no duty was imposed upon him, to register or record the mortgage tendered him.

<p>APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS.</p> <p>Appeal from a decree of the District Court denying, in part, an application for a preliminary injunction:</p>

Held: that no agreement on the part of the Government to repay them could be implied. P. 387. 56 Ct. Clms. 377, affirmed. Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims dis- • missing a petition on demurrer. • Mr. John F. McCarron, with whom Mr. George E. Hamilton was on the brief, for appellant. Mr. Blackburn Esterline, Assistant to the Solicitor General, for the United States.

Held: however, that the use of the entirely closed casing to exclude water and detritus from the shaft and its bearing, to secure lubrication of the bearings from the top and to align the bearings and shaft so as to prevent lateral displacement in the well and keep the shaft in a vertical position was a novelty and did supply a want in the field of deep pumps.

Held: however, that oil originating in West Virginia, a large part of which was ultimately carried out of the State but the destination of which was undetermined becaiise its owners might withdraw it from the line at any point within the State, was intrastate commerce and was a proper basis .for the privilege tax under the law. .Accordingly, in so far as the decree of the Circuit Court enjoined collection of a privilege…

Held: The word “material” included anti-aircraft gun-mounts for the Navy. P. 518. (6) The power “ to 'modify, suspend, cancel, or requisition,” any contract, etc., extends to the cancelation of the Government’s own contracts. P. 519. (c) An executive order delegating power under this clause in sweeping terms to the Secretary of the Navy, should be construed broadly, and included the power to cancel government contracts.

Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923), is a United States Supreme Court opinion that federal minimum wage legislation for women was an unconstitutional infringement of liberty of contract, as protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Held: That resolutions of the board of directors of the corporate owner, reciting the necessity for the taking and an agreement with *582 the United States for a sale at a specified price and authorizing a conveyance, with certain reservations, upon payment of that sum, were not privileged, as an attempt to compromise, but admissions, admissible as evidence of the Government’s right to take, decided by the court, and of…

Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 592 (1923), is a US Supreme Court case on contract law. The Supreme Court held that an implied in fact contract exists as, “an agreement … founded upon a meeting of minds, which, although not embodied in an express contract, is inferred, as a fact, from conduct of the parties showing, in the light of the surrounding circumstances, their tacit understanding.”

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

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

<p>Appeal from the Court of Claims.</p>

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

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

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

<p>Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Kentucky.</p>

<p>Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of South Carolina.</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of North Carolina.</p>