Volume 289 — United States Reports

Held: that title to the realty was given to the executors upon a valid trust, to sell and to apply the rents and profits in the interval. - The representatives of the taxpayer contend that the executors had no title, but only a power in trust, and that subject to the execution of that power, the taxpayer was owner. <If that be so, the loss was his and no one else’s. A mere donee of ia power is not the owner of an estate,…

Held: a majority of the votes cast (appellant objecting) authorized the Directors to issue and sell $538,000 of its interest-bearing bonds. This was done and the proceeds were devoted to improvements for irrigation purposes as contemplated. Interest on the bonds was made payable semi-annually; the principal in annual installments commencing July 1, 1931.

Held: however, that the sale under the pledge had not been fairly made, and that a resale should be ordered. Upon the argument the defendant had made profert of the Barceloux certificate, and had left it with the court to be disposed of in any way consistent with equity and conscience. The shares in other corporations it could not produce, having disposed of them again.

Hurn v. Oursler, 289 U.S. 238 (1933), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a significant federal question raised by a suit can give jurisdiction to federal courts. If the federal question is rejected on the merits, the federal court still has jurisdiction to decide the local question on the merits. The case being discussed was a copyright infringement suit. In United States v. United States Gypsum Co., the Court's majority opinion referred to Hurn v. Oursler in passing. Justice Felix Frankfurter expanded this and recounted the case's background in his concurrence as a key point in his argument.

Held: that the tax cannot validly be applied to the gasoline imported from outside the State, stored in tanks at the airports and used for “ filling ” the interstate airplanes in which it is eventually consumed.

Held: in actions against the owner for injuries resulting from the driver’s negligence, that a presumption of the employment relationship arises from the fact of ownership; 2 or that, if the'relationship is proved, a presump-, tion arises that the accident occurred within the scope of the employment, 3 Many courts have extended responsibility, without the aid of legislation, by imposing liability upon the owner for…

Held: also, that the Company was entitled to an injunction;’ but allowed the City six months within which to abate the nuisance by introducing some method that would prevent the discharge of putrescible sewage into the creek. Upon an appeal by the City, the Circuit Court of Appeals modified the decree by eliminating therefrom- the item of $3500 damages. As so modified the decree was affirmed. 61 F. (2d) 210 .

Held: “ will not support an award of reparation based on the undue prejudice -found to exist.” ¡ .

Held: among other things, that creditors, who refuse to assent to a plan of reorganization have “ the right to share immediately in a forced sale of the corporation’s asséts ”; and that a court of equity lacks ■“ power to compel a creditor of any kind to accept stocks or promises to pay in the future in full extinguish‘d ment of his claim, without being afforded the alternative of deceiving his proportionate share of the…

Held: in 1925, that mandamus must be denied, because the Act made the determination of the Secretary conclusive, 4 Work v. U.S. ex rel. Chestatee Pyrites & Chemical Corp., *512 267 U.S. 185 .

O'Donoghue v. United States (consolidated with Hitz v. United States), 289 U.S. 516 (1933), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that courts in the District of Columbia judiciary can be both Article III courts and Article I tribunals at the same time. The two courts at issue in O'Donoghue were a court of general jurisdiction called the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (now the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia) and a court of appellate jurisdiction called the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia (now the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit). When O'Donoghue was decided, these courts handled cases arising under either federal or local law.

Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553 (1933), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the United States Court of Claims was an Article I tribunal. Because the Court of Claims was not an Article III court, Congress could lower its judges' wages without considering the Compensation Clause. In 1962, the Supreme Court overruled Williams in Glidden Co. v. Zdanok (1962), holding that this court is an Article III court.

Vermont v. New Hampshire, 289 U.S. 593 (1933), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that the boundary between Vermont and New Hampshire is neither the thread of the channel of the Connecticut River nor the top of the west bank of the river, but rather the west bank of the river at the mean low-water mark.