Volume 277 — United States Reports

Held: first, that the interest of the decedent in the partnership was a eho§g in action and intangible and the transfer thereof was subject to the tax imposed by the law of the decedent’s domicil; second, that the bonds and certificates of the United States were tangible property having a situs in New York and were not within the taxable jurisdiction of Connecticut, but 'were to be regarded as in the same class of…

Held: there is a practical necessity to record such instruments because, if not recorded, the statute overrides them in favor of purchasers without notice and creditors; and the choice is like one made under duress. “ The State is not bound to- furnish a registry, but if it sees fit to do so it cannot use its control as a means to impose a liability that it cannot impose directly, any more than it can es *40 cape its…

Held: or authority exercised under, the United States, and the decision is against the title, right, privilege, or immunity specially set. up or claimed by either party under such Constitution, treaty, statute, commission, or authority.” The three provisions — the third as so amended — were carried into § 709 of the Revised Statutes of 1873 and into § 237 of the^ Judicial Code of 1911.

Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183 (1928), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the practice of zoning and its effects on property rights. The Supreme Court reversed a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling and found the invasion of the plaintiff's property rights were "serious and highly injurious," by new city zoning ordinance, and that the placement of the locus of the zoning ordinance would not promote the health, safety, convenience or general welfare of inhabitants. Nectow v. City of Cambridge, along with Euclid v. Ambler, was an early and influential case regarding the relatively new practice of zoning, and constituted the Supreme Court's case law on zoning until 1974.

Springer v. Government of the Philippine Islands, 277 U.S. 189 (1928), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning the Appointments Clause.

Held: that its product claims 28, 30 and 31, concededly broad enough, as stated, to cover the petitioner’s product, are valid and, in effect, that all starch veneering glues, at least when mixed with three parts of water or less, having substantially the properties of animal glue, infringe the patent whether made by Perkins’ process or otherwise.

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, on the matter of whether wiretapping of private telephone conversations, conducted by federal agents without a search warrant with recordings subsequently used as evidence, constituted a violation of the target’s rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the constitutional rights of a wiretapping target have not been violated. In an influential dissent, Justice Louis Brandeis stated that, "[The Founding Fathers] conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone – the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men.