Volume 265 — United States Reports

Held: that lenders who took advantage of this offer and secured repayment shortly before his bankruptcy, when they had reason to believe him insolvent, were not thereby rescinding their contracts for the fraud and reclaiming their own funds, but were creditors equally with the others who filed their claims for reimbursement in the bankruptcy proceedings; and that the repayments thus made were illegal preferences…

Held: The meaning attributed by the Nebraska Supreme Court to the Nebraska statute must be accepted by this Court, on review, as though it had been specifically expressed in the statute. P. 32.

Question certified by the Circuit Court of Appeals under § 239, Judicial Code, upon review of a judgment of the District Court in favor of the United States, in an action to recover penalties from the Railroad Company for violations of the Safety Appliance Act.

Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 (1924), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which established the open-fields doctrine. In an opinion written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Court held that "the special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their 'persons, houses, papers and effects', is not extended to the open fields."

Held: that a finding that the *60 shipper did not assume the primary obligation to pay the freight charges was justified. P. 67. 4. To enforce payment of freight charges by a shipper only secondarily liable, the carrier must first make effort to collect from those primarily liable. P. 69. 5.

Held: that its joinder, or exclusion by summons and severance, was not necessary to sustain an appeal by its codefendants from an order taxing costs. P. 81. 2. An order, of the District Court taxing costs in an equity suit otherwise ended, has the finality requisite for review by appeal. P. 82. 3.

Held: that the subject matter was withdrawn from the cognizance of the Court of Claims by Jud. Code, § 154, and that it could not resume its jurisdiction by setting aside the dismissal retroactively. P. 95. 5.

Held: not a property but a privilege tax, within the power of the State as applied to a local corporation, and not repugnant to the due process or equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 97. 121 Atl. 18 , affirmed.

Held: That the plaintiff’s rights under the contract with the builder were taken. P. 119.

Held: that, in the absence of a fixed share capital, the “ capital stock ” is the net value of the property owned by the association and used in its business. P. 162. 6. Where taxes were unlawfully assessed under the Revenue Act of 1916, and paid under protest, the Government was entitled to retain the money in part satisfaction of a lawful retroactive assessment for the same period under the Revenue Act of 1918.

Held: that there was no purpose, in the exemption, to distinguish between individual beneficiaries and corporate beneficiaries, and that the proceeds of insurance taken by a corporation on the life of an important official, to secure its financial position and indemnify itself against loss of earning power in case of his death, were not taxable as income under the act. P. 194. 2.

Held: That the new stock received by the old stockholders, unlike the money, was not the proceeds of a sale but represented part of the same capital investment as their old shares, without any segregated gain taxable as income under the Revenue Act of 1916. P. 252. (2) The transaction amounted to a financial reorganization under which each stockholder retained half his interest and disposed of the remainder. P. 254.

Held: “The last intervening cause of the accident which occurred to the ‘ Mary Ethel ’ was the fact that the New York Central came in and after removing the New York Central barge allowed the No. 46 to go adrift, but that fact will not relieve the Director General, operating the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad, from liability, inasmuch as he is the same entity that is operating the New York Central.” A decree…

Held: that the exception applies only to aliens coming from Asiatic regions referred to. P. 313. 4.

Held: That the mere fact that butter contains 16% or more of moisture does not bring it within the statutory definition. P. 320. (b) A regulation made by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and approved by the Secretary of the Treasury declaring that any butter having 16% or more of moisture is adulterated, conflicts with the above statutory definition, and is void. Id. 2.

Held: The right of use continues until the permit has been revoked by the Secretary. P. 329.

Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332 (1924), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held Seattle's ordinance limiting business licenses to American citizens violated the Treaty of Amity and Commerce between Japan and the United States, which guaranteed Japanese citizens the right to conduct business in the United States.

<p>CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.</p> <p>Question certified by the Circuit Court of Appeals under Jud. Code, § 239.</p>

This Court may grant plaintiff full relief, whether the right thereto is based upon the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act or upon the common-law right to compel a carrier to perform its duties, or upon a statute of Michigan. Greene v. Louisville & Interurban B. R. Co., 244 U. S. 499; Siler v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 213 U. S. 175; Ohio Tax Cases, 232 U. S. 576. A common carrier by water is charged with the same obligations and duties as any other carrier.

<p>APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA.</p> <p>Appeal from a decree of the District Court dismissing for want of equity a bill brought by a gas company to enjoin interference with a proposed increase in its rates.</p>

<p>1. To invalidate the lien of a judgment under § 67f of the Bankruptcy Act, he who challenges it must show not only that the judgment was recovered within four months prior to the fling of the petition in bankruptcy, but also, by pleading and proof, that the judgment debtor was insolvent when the lien was obtained. P. 368.</p> <p>2. Assuming (but not deciding) that an adjudication of the bankruptcy of a partnership necessarily adjudges the partners, as individuals, bankrupt, it raises no presumption that they were insolvent for any period before the petition in bankruptcy was filed. P. 370.</p> <p>3. Nor does the fact that sales of the property of the partnership and partners, made some months later by the trustee in bankruptcy, did not realize enough to pay for the partnership or individual debts, establish that the partners were insolvent at a time anterior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition. Id.</p>

Held: That the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require that this additional compensation be paid by the immediate employers of the employees to be benefited, nor prevent the legislature from providing for its payment out of general funds created as above described. P. 376. Mountain Timber Co. v. Washington, 243 U. S. 219 . (2) The arrangement does not conflict with the equal protection clause.

Held: that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was a necessary party. Id. 3. A bill which is defective for want of a necessary party should be dismissed on that ground, and not upon the merits. P. 393. 277 Fed. 632 , reversed.

Held: That the territorial trial court had jurisdiction to decide upon the construction of the indictment, its sufficiency and the effect of the stipulation, and its judgment, if erroneous, was not void, even though the application of constitutional principles was involved. P. 402. (b) The stipulation was not an amendment of the indictment. Ex parte Bain, 121 U. S. 1 , distinguished.

Held: That the true value of the patent rights, and not merely the money actually paid for them, must be allowed for as part of its property, in gauging the adequacy of rates fixed by a city. P. 415. (b) As the obsolescence could not have been long anticipated it was not imperative, if possible, that the company should have provided for it out of the revenues of years preceding those in question.

Held: that an express company is not a “ carrier by railroad ” within the meaning of the paragraph. P. 430. 2. An appellee in support of the decree in his favor, may reassert grounds that were rejected by the court below, without taking a cross appeal. P. 435. 3.

United States v. Ninety-Five Barrels Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar, 265 U.S. 438 (1924), was an in rem case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that apple cider vinegar is mislabelled when made from rehydrated dried apples, and not "the expressed juice of apples" known as apple cider. Douglas Packing Company's Excelsior and Sun Bright vinegars were the products at issue, and the company responded to the lawsuit.

Held: that the general expenses of the receivership were apportionable against the several funds derived by the receiver from operation of oil and gas wells, whether on one side or the other of the boundary established, and that funds arising from wells operated by claimants under the receiver’s supervision, causing less expense, should be assessed on a lower basis than funds arising from wells operated by him directly.

Held: That B was guilty of unfair competition. P. 528. (b) He who induces another to commit a fraud and furnishes the means, is equally guilty. P. 530. (c) When several acts of unfair competition are shown, there is warrant for concluding that they will continue, and equity will afford adequate relief by injunction.

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

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

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

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

<p>Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.</p>