Volume 268 — United States Reports

Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5 (1925), is a Supreme Court case involving the applicability of the Harrison Act. The Harrison Act was originally a taxing measure on drugs such as morphine and cocaine, but it later effectively became a prohibition on such drugs. However, the Act had a provision exempting doctors prescribing the drugs. Dr. Charles O. Linder of Spokane, Washington prescribed the drugs to addicts, which the federal government said was not a legitimate medical practice. He was prosecuted and convicted. Linder appealed, and the Supreme Court unanimously overturned his conviction, holding that the federal government overstepped its power to regulate medicine.

Held: upon a construction of the act,, and without considering the power of Congress to impose civil liability on citizens of the United States for torts committed in alien territory, that the action would not lie.

Held: that the District Court had no jurisdiction, whether the plaintiff were treated as in effect the West Virginia corporation, suing as prop-' erty owner, or as the Maryland corporation suing as stockholder, since in the latter case the West Virginia corporation would be an indispensable party plaintiff, and in either case diversify of citizenship would be lacking. P. 38. 296 Fed., 74 , reversed.

Held: (а) That the provisions, of the act in reference to the gains derived and the losses .sustained from the sale of property acquired before March 1, 1913, w.ere correlative, and that whatever effect was in- - -tended, to be given to the market value of property on that date in determining taxable gains, a corresponding effect was intended to be given to such market value in determining deductible losses; (б) That the…

Held: on the authority of Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 U. S. 527 , and Walsh v. Brewster, 255 U. S. 536 , that the Act allowed a deduction to the extent only that an actual loss was sustained from the investment, as measured by the difference between the purchase and sale prices of the property.

Held: that the assignees were properly directed by the ^Bankruptcy Court, in a summary proceeding, to pay over to the trustee in bankruptcy an amount equal to the deposits, including the part paid the bank before the filing of the petition as well as the part paid thereafter. P. 115. 289 Fed. 192 , reversed.

Held: that'a suit by tfié:.United States, on,, behalf-xif *122 the- Indian,' to set the lease aside dr for alternative relief, could be prosecuted to reach the shares, or the proceeds thereof, in the hands of the fraudulent lessees and their donees, including shares bought by- these lessees from the guardian, even though relief could not be had as against the corporation and bona fide purchasers for value; and (b) that an…

Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U.S. 161 (1925), was a case before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the taxability, under United States tax law, of a divided interest in a bequest. It is notable (and thus appears frequently in law school casebooks) for the following holding: A bequest of income from property held in trust is taxable, even where the bequest of the entire corpus of the trust would be excluded as a gift.

Held: reasonable, and consistent with the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 282, 3. The necessity and expediency of taking private property for a public road are legislative questions, to . a decision of w’hich a hearing of the land owner is not essential under the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 284. 4.

Held: in view of the legislative history of these provisions and the evident policy of the Act to' secure publicity of the information authorized to be put into the lists, that publication by newspapers of the names and amounts of taxes so listed is not within the inhibition of § 3167. P. 385. ' 3 Fed. (2d) 190, affirmed.

Held: that the judgment of state courts in criminal cases will not be reviewed on habeas corpus merely because some right under the Constitution of the United States is alleged to have been denied to the person convicted. The proper remedy is by writ of error. Markuson v. Boucher, 175 U. S. 184 . And see Baker v. Grice, 169 U. S. 284 , and Tinsley v. Anderson, 171 U. S. 101 , 104.

Held: (I) That the law is not an escheat, but a tax, law. P. 492. (2) That a tax so levied was void in so far as based on transfer of decedent’s tangible personal property in New York and Massachusetts, where *474 ancillary letters were granted, the property administered and transfer taxes imposed and collected. P. 496. 4.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court striking down an Oregon statute that required all children to attend public school. The decision significantly expanded coverage of the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to recognize personal civil liberties. The case has been cited as a precedent in more than 100 Supreme Court cases, including Roe v. Wade, and in more than 70 cases in the courts of appeals.

Held: adopting that finding, (1) That the agreement by which the commissions were set apart for the German firm was valid by the law of the United States, as it was also proven to be by the law of Germany. P. 558.

Held: in its application to the case, not distinguishable from the meaning of the same word in.the Income Tax Law of 1913 and the Revenue Act of 1916. P. 631. 2. The Sixteenth Amendment, like other laws authorizing or imposing taxes, is not to be extended beyond the meaning clearly indicated by its words.

Held: (a), that substitution, as defendant, of the Agent appointed by the President under the' •Transportation Act, 1920, is not permissible under § 206(d) thereof, which relates only to suits previously brought against the Director General; (b), that such substitution is in effect the commencement of a new action, and a state statute construed as allowing this by amendment later than two years from the date of the…

Held: That a judgment refusing relief by mandamus was not reviewable by this Court upon the question whether the substantial provisions of the regulations deprived the plaintiff of his property in violation of the .Fourteenth ■ Amendment, the federal question raised in the state court having been limited-to the constitutionality of the transfer from the district of lesser to that of greater restrictions. P. 650.

Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had extended the First Amendment's provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press to apply to the governments of U.S. states. Along with Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago (1897), it was one of the first major cases involving the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. It was also one of a series of Supreme Court cases that defined the scope of the First Amendment's protection of free speech and established the standard to which a state or the federal government would be held when it criminalized speech or writing.