Volume 270 — United States Reports

Held: that the Government was not bound to make good losses suffered by the contractor in performing the contract, due to delays in completing the buildings. 59 Ct. Cls. 593, affirmed. Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims denying a claim for damages due to delay in enabling the claimant to perform its contract. Messrs.

Held: such rights are not impaired by the subsequent creation of the State, and the rights which otherwise would then pass to the State in virtue of its admission into the Union are restricted and qualified accordingly. Id. 3.

Held: *60 1. That the facts disclosed a maritime tort to which the general admiralty jurisdiction would extend save for the state compensation law; but the matter was of mere local concern and its regulation by the State would work no material prejudice to any characteristic feature of the general maritime law. P. 64. 2.

Held: that there was no express contract of the Government to pay the expenses, and damages to the company's business, resulting ¿from the removal; and that no contract could be implied. 59 Ct. Cls. 980, affirmed. Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims dismissing the petition on demurrer.

Held: under a proviso of the contract which left the price to be adjusted by the Government and the contractor, that it was to be the joint act of both parties and not the exclusive act of either, that if they could not agree, then a reasonable compensation was to be allowed, that that reasonable compensation was to be proved by competent evidence and settled by a jury and that the contractor at such a trial was at…

Held: that, in order to date the interest from time of payment of tax, the protest under which it was paid must set forth a specific and valid reason for a refund. P. 171. 4.

Held: administered and disposed of by the United States conformably to that obligation. Whether in point of merits the bill is well grounded or otherwise, we think it shows that the United States has a real and direct interest in the matter presented for examination and adjudication.

Held: “ Section 1087-1, Stats., as amended by c. 643, Laws 1913, which provides that gifts of a, material part of a donor’s estate, made within six years prior to his death, shall be construed to have been made in contemplation of death so far as transfer taxes are concerned, constitutes a legislative definition of what is a transfer in contemplation of death, and not a mere rule of law making the fact of such gifts prima…

Held: in a suit against an adverse claimant' and the United States. P. 243. 2.

Held: in an unpublished opinion, that while the vessel would ordinarily be liable for any damage resulting from unseawofthiness, there could be no recovery in this case, because the unseaworthiness had resulted from the conversion of the vessel into a cattle ship;, that this conversion involved a change in the charter party which *257 the master was without authority to make, Gracie v. Palmer, 8 Wheat. 605 , 639; that the…

Held: Wisconsin law enforced, and other customary acts of dominion and jurisdiction exercised by that state within the disputed area.

Held: June 13, 1921. Missouri Pacific R. R. Co. v. United States, 56 Ct. Cls. 341, 348.

Held: in view of the remedial purpose of the Act and the liberal construction called for, that intervening claimants, like original plaintiffs, have one year from final settlement. P. 360. 8. Amendments held germane to causes of action originally alleged. P. 362. 9. A judgment of the District Court may validly be entered at a term following that in which the case was heard and taken under advisement.

Held: however, that, where one is asserting his right to á patent, the statutes do not require an actual reduction to practice if the patent is allowed. Wheeler v. Clipper, 10 Blatch. 181; Telephone Cases, 126 IT. S.-.l; Automatic v. Pneumatic, 166 Fed. 288 . It is essential that the application be not only allowable, but be allowed. Abandoned or rejected applications are not considered evidence of prior invention.

Weaver v. Palmer Brothers Company, 270 U.S. 402 (1926), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court struck down a public health and safety regulation as a violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Held: The state trial court had jurisdiction even if rhe joinder was contrary to state law. P. 425.' 2. The decision of the state supreme court on state law, with respect to the trial and the challenges, was not re-examinable. Id. 3. The joint trial of the two charges, and limitations of the challenges, was within the constitutional power of the State. Id. 4. The interference by habeas corpus was unwarranted.

Held: unconstitutional. P. 433. 4. The repeal of this section did not render this case moot, since, in ' view of a provision of the state constitution that “ no act of the Legislature shall affect the right or remedy of either party .... in any pending cáse,” it is uncertain whether the plaintiff might not still be held liable to lose its license. P. 433. Reversed.

Held: directors and officers were chosen, corporate books and accounting records were,kept, and such other acts were done and expenses paid as were necessary to keep up the corporate existence. An office was maintained for the activities described.

Held: .in keeping with its decisions' in prior cases, and that the Circuit Court of Appeals, while re-' garding the lease as given for a term exceeding ten years, held it good for that period and invalid as to the excess. To determine this conflict involves a consideration of the purpose and effect of the restrictive provisions in the Acts of 1895 and 1897 and an examination of the terms of the lease.

Held: That a provision in a baggage tariff filed by the Director General of Railroads during federal control, limiting liability for misdelivery of baggage,, is within the purview of this section. P. 468. (2) The - primary purpose of the second clause was, by safeguarding rates, to protect the United States from liability on its six months’ guarantjr of a “ standard return ” to carriers when released from federal control.

Held: in The Old Settlers case, supra, and in United States v. The Cherokee Nation, supra, that in the past financial dealings between the United States and the Cherokee Nation on debts due from the.former to the latter, interest at five per cent, until payment was to be allowed as if stipulated. This result followed from a decision by the Senate of the United States anting as umpire between the two parties in 1850.

Held: in paying it, to a knowledge of the true amount, and if, by mistake, *528 he pay to a bona fide holder for value without notice a- larger • ainount to which the paper has been fraudulently raised, he can not recover the difference from such holder. P. 533. 2. This rule is applicable to the United States.

Held: in concluding that Bergdoll had consented to the exercise by the bankruptcy court of jurisdiction to determine whether he was personally liable.

Held: upon final hearing, that the order was no longer in effect when this suit was begun, and that, for this reason, it was without jurisdiction over the defendant. The decree entered set aside the service of process and dismissed the bill for want of jurisdiction. The case is here on direct appeal under paragraph 4 of § 238 of the Judicial Code as amended by Act of February 13, 1925, c. 229, 43 Stat. 936 , 938.

Held: that there was a want of identity of parties. The decision in the Dennison case rests entirely on Troxell v. Del., Lack. & West. R. R., 227 U. S. 434 , The effect of .the last named case we pass for later consideration.