Volume 266 — United States Reports

Ziang Sung Wan v. United States, 266 U.S. 1 (1924), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the admissibility of a confession in a 1919 triple homicide case. Scott Seligman, writing for the Smithsonian, referred to the case as having "laid the groundwork for Americans' right to remain silent". One of the victims of the triple murder was translator Theodore Wong.

Held: the cause of action had ceased to exist and that the appeal would not be entertained on the question of costs alone, held, that the dismissal did not violate their constitutional rights. P. 34. 236 S. W. 239 , affirmed. Error to a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals of Texas which dismissed an appeal from a judgment dismissing a bill for an injunction. *33 Mr. R. D. Evcms, for plaintiffs in error.

Held: That the tax, computed either way, and the act, violate the commerce clause, since all the corporation’s business, intrastate and interstate, and all its property, were represented by the shares of stock outstanding; and the application of the rate to all the shares authorized, or to a number greater than the total outstanding, necessarily amounted to a tax and direct burden upon all the property and business,…

Held: that an act of the Board, purporting to approve an assessment tentatively as for maintenance, leaving for future determination the question whether the work in view was indeed for maintenance, or construction work for which settlers could not be assessed, and providing that, in the latter event, the Board would require that amounts collected be credited on settlers’ contracts for water rights or be repaid them in…

Held: construing the two acts together, that the proviso does not mean that the vessel, being a merchant vessel, must be actively employed as such when the action is commenced; and that where a vessel was at all times previously engaged in the mercantile trade, and so engaged when the cause of action arose, the mere fact that she was laid up and out of use when the action in personam began and thereafter, did not prevent…

Held: that the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury in paying such certificates is ministerial; and that, where the claimant named in a certificate held as trustee ex maleficio for another whose equity the Secretary of State had remitted to the courts, the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia had jurisdiction of a suit brought by such beneficial owner against the other in which the Secretary of the Treasury and the…

Held: That a final judgment, entered after a reversal, sustaining the plaintiff’s claim, ordering that the shares be publicly sold, and confirming a sale so made to the plaintiff, was binding, with respect to his ownership so acquired, upon the assignees of the shares, who so took them pending the appeal, although the plaintiff had obtained no supersedeas of the original judgment, and, owing to the tactics pursued by his…

Held: that the suit could not be maintained in the absence of the other contract-holders (settlers) as parties. P. 159. 4. Under the Carey Act, where the water supply is adequate for part only of the acreage for which water-right contracts are outstanding, some of the contracts must be eliminated before any of the lands can be deemed reclaimed or be adjudged subject to a lien for the cost of water-rights.

Held: therefore, that the tax laid was not obnoxious either to the state constitution or to that of the United States. *190 So far as concerns the Federal Constitution, the validity of the tax may be rested, also, on other grounds. A State may defray the cost of constructing a highway, in whole or in part, by means of a special assessment upon property specially benefited thereby. But it is not obliged to do so.

Held: that the discrimination was unlawful and the order valid. P. 197. 295 Fed. 523 , reversed. Appeal from a decree of the District Court enjoining enforcement of an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Mr. Blackburn Esterline, Assistant to the Solicitor General, with whom Mr. Solicitor General Beck was on the brief, for the United States.

Held: that, upon acceptance by the Government of the claimant’s proposal, the contract was rescinded, as proposed, the release by one party being sufficient consideration for relase by the other; and that the attempted reservation of a right to recover anticipated profits on the articles so eliminated came too late. P. 220. 57 Ct. Clms. 71, affirmed.

Held: that the Government was estopped from maintaining that his service during the civil war as a cadet in the Naval Academy was not service within the meaning of the statute, that question having been determined against it in the previous litigation. Id. 58 Ct. Clms. 164, affirmed. *237 Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims upholding the claim of a naval officer for pay.

Held: a mutual and valid contract. P. 250. 4. In determining the validity of such contract, an opinion as to the seller’s legal obligations under it, expressed by the seller’s manager to the buyer’s agent after the contract was made, is of no weight. P. 252. 5.

Held: that an award for the lessee, based largely on conditions and values existing before the advent of war prices, correctly interpreted the lease and agreement, and that the lessee was not entitled to set the award aside, or to any relief in a court of equity. P. 263. 57 Ct. Clms. 616, affirmed. Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims dismissing the petition.

Held: where a foreign corporation attacked on constitutional grounds a tax for the privilege of doing business in New York, assessed, on the basis of allocated income, under Art. 9-A of the New York Tax Law, as amended in 1918, but had failed to exercise its right under § 218 of that Article to apply for a revision and obtain a hearing before the State Tax Commission, at which it might have submitted evidence, and upon…

Held: one judge dissenting, that a bankrupt is not precluded from claiming a homestead as exempt merely because, when the petition in bankruptcy is filed, he has not done all that is required by the state law to entitle him to the exemption, but may rightfully demand that the exemption be allowed where he has met the requirements of the state law within a reasonable time after the filing of the petition.

(by the court) contains the following: “Where the director general specially appears to object to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, and at the same time challenges the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the controversy, as to which the motion is not well founded, this is a voluntary appearance equivalent to the service of summons, and gives the court jurisdiction over the person of such officer.” 109 Neb. 615 .

Held: (а) That the second policy was in effect but a continuation of the first and, like it, was controlled by the laws of Tennessee. P. 395. (б) That, in an action upon the second policy in Texas, where the insurance company was doing business when it issued, a Texas statute (Art. 4746, Rev. Civ.

Held: shall be conveyed, transferred, assigned, delivered, or paid over to the Alien Property Custodian.” 1 “ Sec. 9.

Held: that one of the Indians has no standing to maintain a class suit to restrain executive officials from alleged excess of their powers in disposing of the funds and interest, since the trust is the obligation of the United States, and the right of the Indians is merely to have the United States administer it properly. P. 486. 3.

Held: that the suit could not be maintained,— (a) Under the Dent Act, since the agreement, if any, had not been “ performed in whole or in part,” nor had “ expenditures been made or obligations incurred upon the faith of the same,” (P. 493,) (b) Nor as upon an express contract under the Tucker Act, because the transaction was wholly executory and was not “ reduced to writing and signed by the contracting parties with…

Held: and plaintiff was the highest bidder on three lots, amounting in all to 29,520 *520 tons. The total of its bids was $711,500. 1 It deposited more than ten per cent, of that amount. The three lots were by the auctioneer knocked down and sold to plaintiff for the amount of its bids and upon the terms and conditions of the advertisement.

Held: that there was no taking of the vessel under eminent domain, and that the United States was not liable for the depreciation of her sale value. P. 540. 2.

Held: that the tax is one upon the privilege or right to do business. P. 562. 2.