Volume 284 — United States Reports

United States v. Kirby Lumber Co., 284 U.S. 1 (1931), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that when a corporation settles its debts for less than the face amount, a taxable gain has occurred.

Held: applies whether the contract is with the government or between private parties. In either case, cancellation is an exercise of the power of eminent domain, and the- liability of the government is for- just compensation. There is no warrant for saying that the elements to be considered in fixing just compensation are different in respect of the two classes of contracts.

Held: applying the test of the Shanks case, that employment in guarding tools, intended for use in the construction of a new depot and tracks to be used in interstate commerce, had no such direct relation to interstate transportation as was contemplated by the Employers’ Liability Act.

Held: for disposal according to law, and if he does not pay the same over to the parties entitled, he would be liable therefor on his official bond.” See also Detroit v. Blanchfield, 13 F. (2d) 13 .

Held: it is the infliction of this burden that deprives the courts of jurisdiction over cases like this. Davis v. Farmers Cooperative Co., 262 U. S. 312 . Further, as a practical matter, courts could not undertake to ascertain in advance of trial the number and importance of probable witnesses within and without the State and retain *288 or refuse jurisdiction according to the relative inconvenience of the parties.

Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States set an important standard to prevent double jeopardy.

Held: tó be on account of the tax due for the six months, with a consequent overpayment-for that period in the sum of $538,202.77. Of this overpayment, $94,835.16 has been refunded, and, as petitioner concedes, recovery of the $443,367.61 balance is barred by the statute of limitations if it be treated as an overpayment attributable to that period.

Held: that the terminal facilities in which respondent worked constitute a part of the railroad’s.system necessary to the operation of the road and to the conduct of interstate commerce; that the fact that some work is there done on locomotives engaged in intrastate commerce does not deprive the establishment of its character as an essential instrumentality of interstate commerce; that the respondent was engaged in a…

Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. 421 (1932), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Harry M. Blackmer was a United States citizen resident in Paris. Blackmer was found guilty of contempt by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia for refusing to appear as a witness for the United States in a criminal trial, which was related to the Teapot Dome scandal, after being subpoenaed. Blackmer was subsequently fined $30,000 and the costs of the court. Blackmer challenged the fine under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Court unanimously ruled against Blackmer, with Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes delivering the judgment and opinion of the Court and Justice Owen Josephus Roberts not participating.

Held: that, notwithstanding the fact that Broder’s title antedated the Act of 1866, that title, nevertheless, was subject to the right of way for the canal.

from pages 511-513 intentionally omitted] Mr. Harry Le Baron Sampson, of Boston, Mass., for petitioner. The Attorney General and Mr. Charles B. Rugg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States. Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court. 1 Petitioner sued to recover an alleged overpayment of income and profits taxes for 1918.

Held: for reasons stated and upon authorities cited, that the decree in the earlier suit conclusively established that the Carbon County Land Company was a party.to the fraudulent conspiracy to procure certification of the.title to the lands to the state; that as against the Land .Company and all claiming under it, the United States was equitably entitled to the land; that the Land Company, so far as it had acquired any…