Volume 280 — United States Reports

Held: 100 I. C. C. 421 , that it was without authority to require the construction of the new union station. It said in the report, at page 430: “ We conclude that we are not empowered- to require the construction of a union passenger station as sought in No. 14778.

Held: a taxable situs in Virginia within the sanction of section one of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?” I think the judgment should be affirmed.

Held: almost from the foundation of the government, that a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise which need not be apportioned, and it is enough for present purposes that this tax is of the latter class.

Held: following Iowa decisions, that since the city lacked power to bind itself, there was no ¡contract. And there is a statement to that effect in San Antonio v. San Antonio Public Service Co., 255 U. S. 547 , 556. But in Southern Utilities Co. v. Palatka, 268 U. S. 232 , 233, the question was expressly left open. Obviously, that is a matter of state law on which the decisions of this Court are not controlling. Fifth.

Held: that since the language of the Act of June 21, 1906, refers only to Indian allottees, it cannot be considered as authorizing the President to continue restrictions on alienation in patents issued to Indian homesteaders under the Act of July 4, 1884.

Held: in substance, that the powers of the Receiver were limited to the' purposes of the suit in which he was appointed, and the Common Pleas Court could confer upon him authority to do only such acts as were within the scope of its jurisdiction as limited by such purposes; and that since there was no object or purpose in them that could be served by the bringing of the suit against Leach & Co., the court was without…

Held: the acts complained of constitute, under local law, an actionable wrong, entitling respondents to an injunction and to damages. Hammond v. Fuller, 1 Paige (N. Y.) 197; Brown v. Bowen, 30 N. Y. 519 ; Hall v. Augsbury, 46 N. Y. 622 , 625, 626; Rothery v. New York Rubber Co., 24 Hun. 172 , aff’d 90 N. Y. 30 ; American Woolen Co. v. State, 195 App. Div. (N. Y.) 698 , 705.

United States v. Wurzbach, 280 U.S. 396 (1930), is a unanimous ruling by the US Supreme Court that the term "political purpose," as used in the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, was not impermissibly vague. The Supreme Court reversed the district court, which had quashed an indictment under the Act.

Held: in a series of well-reasoned opinions, that a loss occasioned by the taxpayer’s breach of contract is not deductible in the year of the breach, except under the special circumstances where, within the tax year, there is a definite admission of liabilty, negotiations for settlement are begun, and a reasonable estimate of the amount of the loss is accrued on the books. 1 It may be assumed that, since the Company kept…