Volume 271 — United States Reports

Held: to take the depositions of witnesses who did not voluntarily appear. See State ex rel. Farber v. Shot, 304 Mo. 523 . Officers who take depositions are authorized to compel witnesses to attend and give testimony. Mo. Rev. Stat. (1919) § 5460. The depositions, when taken, may be read at the hearing before the Board. State ex rel. Farber v. Shot, supra.

Hartsville Oil Mill v. United States, 271 U.S. 43 (1926), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims was not enlarged by Congressional reference legislation when the court already had jurisdiction to hear the case under another section of the Judicial Code. Additionally the court held that modification to the contract in question was not by duress as there had not been an inadequate power in the courts to remedy the effects of the threatened actions.

Held: in the Air-Way Case, to be an unconstitutional discrimination, - since it resulted in a tax larger than the tax imposed on other corporations- with like privileges and like business and property within the State, but with a smaller capital authorized under the laws of the State of their creation. In the present case, the plaintiff corporation is^orgariized and does all its business in Illinois.

Held: that, as the cause of action for death is the creature of statute and is given exclusively to the administrator of the decedent, no cause of action can arise or accrue until there is an administrator.

Held: toward the law of the Philpot Case, see remarks made by Baron Wood in Attorney General v. St. Aubyn, Wightwick, 167. In '1777, the first Constitution was adopted by the Colony of New York.

Held: Tinsley v. Treat, 205 U. S. 20 , and cases following, that, while the indictment, if it is a valid and sufficient one on its face, may be regarded as enough to put the defendant to his proof, the defendant has a constitutional right to show the absence of probable cause. Of course, this constitutional right is a substantia! one. It is not a matter of form.

Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that no taxable income arose from the repayment in German marks of loans that had originally been made in U.S. dollars, despite the fact that the marks had gone down in value relative to the dollar since the loan had been made.[1] This decision was narrowed by the court six years later in United States v. Kirby Lumber Co..

Held: that upon the death of Mrs. Erskine before the real estate had been sold, all her right therein had been extinguished, and no interest had passed to the testamentary trustee; and accordingly reversed the' order of the District Court. - 1 F. (2d) 149 . This writ of certiorari was then granted. 267 U. 'S. 588 .

Held: upon an accounting: (1) That the failure of the German partners to liquidate the German assets, and their continued use of them in the business during the w;ar, were not grounds for holding them as purchasers, of the American’s interest in such assets as .of the date when war. was declared, their conduct not having been hostile, nor inconsistent with an honest effort to administer the property to the best advantage…

Held: as the proceeds themselves are to be held, for the account of the Alien Property Custodian.' - With enemy-owned property seized by the Custodian, it has been held, the United States may deal as it sees fit, White v. Mechanics’ Securities Corporation, 269 U. S. 283 ; but it has no such latitude in. respect of the property of an American citizen.

Corrigan v. Buckley, 271 U.S. 323 (1926), was a US Supreme Court case in 1926 that ruled that the racially-restrictive covenant of multiple residents on S Street NW, between 18th Street and New Hampshire Avenue, in Washington, DC, was a legally-binding document that made the selling of a house to a black family a void contract. This ruling set the precedent upholding racially restrictive covenants in Washington; soon after this ruling, racially restrictive covenants flourished around the nation. Subsequently, in Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) the court reconsidered such covenants and found that racially restrictive covenants are unenforceable.

Held: so as to support the judgment of the District Court. Judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed" and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Beversed.

Held: on the excess of each quarterly payment, from the date on which it was paid.

Held: That these acts by the city were in trespass > upon the rights of the lot-owners, and that the state laws of 1857 and 1871, as applied by the state court to uphold the city’s conduct, were an. unconstitutional impairment of the contracts with the lot-owners. P. 398.

Held: that the refusal was equivalent of a law of the State impairing the obligation of the contracts, within the meaning of Article I, § 10, of the Constitution; and that this court had jurisdiction, under Jud. Code, § 237, to review by writ of error a judgment of the state court sustaining the refusal over the constitutional objection. P. 409. 2.

United States v. Ramsey, 271 U.S. 467 (1926), was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the government had the authority to prosecute crimes against Native Americans (Indians) on reservation land that was still designated Indian Country by federal law. The Osage Indian Tribe held mineral rights that were worth millions of dollars. A white rancher, William K. Hale, devised a plot to kill tribal members to allow his nephew, who was married to a tribal member, to inherit the mineral rights. The tribe requested the assistance of the federal government, which sent Bureau of Investigation agents to solve the murders. Hale and several others were arrested and tried for the murders, but they claimed that the federal government did not have jurisdiction.

Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad, 271 U.S. 500 (1926), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a law passed by the US colonial government of the Philippines in 1921, Act No. 2972 of the Philippine Legislature, known as the "Chinese Bookkeeping Act", was unconstitutional. It prevented business records from being kept in the Chinese language.

Held: that there is no principle entitling such purchasers to notice of the exercise of this statutory power by the creditor, and that in failing to provide such notice the statute does not deprive them . of property without due process of law or deny them the equal protection-of the.laws. P. 635. 158 Ga. 876 , affirmed.