Volume 288 — United States Reports

Held: 11 as we must, that these findings, based upon evidence, may not be disturbed. *32 The appellees’ challenge of the order as beyond the power of the Commission was sustained by the District Court, and this decision is assigned as error.

Held: after computing the tax accordingly, that there had been an overpayment of taxes in thé sum of $32,634.89.

Held: the events which, by the very terms of the statute, .call it into operation. Foster & Creighton Co. v. Graham, 154 Tenn. 412 , 420; 285 S. W. 570 ; Quick Service Tire Co. v. Smith, 156 Tenn. 96 , 102; 299 S. W. 807 .

Held: as a matter of law, that Rocco’s negligence was the primary cause of the accident, and therefore the petitioner could not maintain the action. *279 This ruling was made in reliance upon the authorities of which Davis v. Kennedy, 266 U. S. 147 , Unadilla Valley Ry. Co. v. Caldine, 278 U. S. 139 , and Southern Ry. Co. v. Youngblood, 286 U. S. 313 , are typical.

Held: nevertheless, that the question was one of fact depending upon the credibility of the witnesses, and that it was for the jury to determine, as between the one witness and the many, where the truth lay.

Held: was not an element in the application of § 303 (d), and that this provision was' designed to insure the inclusion of the-stock of a domestic corporation in all cases, whether the .certificates were physically present in the United -States or not. Compare Corry v. Baltimore, 196 U. S. 466 , 473, 474.

Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee, 288 U.S. 517 (1933), is a corporate law decision from the United States Supreme Court.