Volume 279 — United States Reports

Held: following Frederickson v. Louisiana, 23 How. 445 , that Article 7 was intended to apply only to the property of citizens of one country located within the other and so placed no limitation upon the power of either government to deal with its own citizens and their property within its own dominion.

Held: equivalent to the operation of the common law, and so, under the saving clause of § 256, to support a suit for dam *123 ages either in admiralty or common law. The Louisiana Workmen’s Compensation Act gave him no right of action.

Held: by a majority decision, that the direction in the mandate to the effect that any judgment recovered in the state court should not affect the right of the receiver to contest the claim de novo in the federal court had been improvidently made. It, therefore, reversed the judgment of the District Court and remanded the cause for further proceedings.

Karnuth v. United States ex rel. Albro, 279 U.S. 231 (1929), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that whether war between the United States and a treaty partner annuls stipulations of that treaty depends upon the intrinsic character of the stipulations.

Held: in the Case of the State Freight Tax, 15 Wall. 232 , to constitute a regulation of interstate commerce in conflict with the Constitution. The Court said (pp. 275-276): “ Then, why is not a tax upon freight transported from State to State a regulation of interstate transportation, and, therefore, a regulation of commerce-among the *250 States?

Held: that a Probate Court of Massachusetts may not appoint a national bank, otherwise qualified, to be executor, administrator or trustee, if it approves one as such. In construing § 3, we think it to be in conformity therewith for the national bank, after consolidation, to apply to the Massachusetts Probate Court for appointment as a succeeding fiduciary to carry on the duties.

Held: would operate practically to set aside the order of the Commission. Here respondent does not ask that the order be set aside or that it be regarded as illegal and void; it insists only that the order did not purport to deal with the contract between the carriers, and so cannot have the effect, attributed to it by petitioner, of annulling the contract. The question is merely one of the legal effect of the order.

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.” But the computation of the present tax is not, as in the’ Air-Way case, based upon the mere authority of the corporation…

Ex parte Bakelite Corp., 279 U.S. 438 (1929), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) was an Article I tribunal. In 1962, the Supreme Court overruled Bakelite in Glidden Co. v. Zdanok (1962), holding that this court is an Article III court.

Held: on the evidence, that the Company had no lien on the vessel, and dismissed the libel. 22 F. (2d) 584 . This decree was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 25 F. (2d) 648 .

Held: and there are reasons why he desires not to testify; for when once he has crossed the state line, he is beyond the grasp of any of the court’s processes to bring him to the trial or to punish him for his refusal to answer to a subpoena.

United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It concerned a pacifist applicant for naturalization who in the interview declared not to be willing to "take up arms personally" in defense of the United States. Originally found unable by the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to take the prescribed oath of allegiance, a decision reversed in appeal, the case was argued before the Supreme Court, which ruled against the applicant, and thus denied her the possibility of becoming a United States citizen.

The Pocket Veto Case (279 U.S. 655 (1929)), formally Bands of the State of Washington v. United States and Okanogan, Methow, San Poelis, Nespelem, Colville, and Lake Indian Tribes v. United States, was a unanimous United States Supreme Court decision that interpreted the U.S. Constitution's provisions on the pocket veto.

Held: as is well understood, that railroads so differ from other kinds of property that they may be separately classified. The case has no bearing here. In Fort Smith Lumber Co. v. Arkansas, supra, the suit was to enforce an obligation of the corporation itself and not merely a claim for taxes against its land.

Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 279 U.S. 716 (1929), was an income tax case before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Held: that the effect of the Act of 1927 is to impair the obligation of the contracts embodied in its leases in violation of § 10, Art. I, and to deprive it. of property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. By Act of January 22, 1920, 108 Ohio Laws, Part 2, 1138, the Ohio Legislature had declared that Lineal Part 1 of the canal should be abandoned.