Volume 292 — United States Reports

Held: in the circumstances, the federal court should not have enjoined the state court proceeding; but that it should have retained jurisdiction. When thereafter it appeared — Ex parte Green — that in the state court the injured party insisted on denying the owner’s right to limitation, we said *24 the federal court properly enjoined further proceedings.

Held: is, therefore, to be construed to cover gasoline whether imported or manufactured within the state. It appears, moreover, that no gasoline is or has been distilled or manufactured in Iowa except that which was distilled or manufactured by appellant prior to April 1, 1932. Since that date the appellant has not distilled or manufactured gasoline within the state.

Held: by laches and estoppel. They stood by without opposition while the property was improved. They refrained from making use of remedies, both administrative and judicial, that were ready to their call. For nearly five years they held aloof without word or act of protest, and then invoked the aid of equity.

Held: claims may be reduced to judgment, and attachments and executions levied. This is doubtless the prevailing practice when the corporation is solvent, or when insolvency is not so gross as to lead to sacrifice or hardship.

Held: the Act of 1918 did not authorize. The Government points to the literal meaning of the words of the statute, to the established administrative construction, and to the action of the Congress in recognition of that construction. “Worthless,” says the Government, means destitute of worth, of no value or use. This was the interpretation of the statute by the Treasury Department.

Held: under the rule established by Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Carr, 76 Ala. 388 , that no Alabama court had jurisdiction of any suit against a foreign corporation unless the cause of action had arisen within the State. 2 In the case at bar, the court held that, despite the 1907 Act, lack of *232 jurisdiction still existed in respect to causes of action arising in another state under the federal law; because, since…

Held: in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419 , over the vigorous dissent of Mr. Justice Iredell, 5 that a State was liable to suit by a citizen of another State or of a foreign country. But this decision created such a shock of surprise that the Eleventh Amendment was at once proposed and adopted.

Held: in cases involving state banks, that under these statutes the State acquires a lien on all the assets of a depository bank, both those at the time of the execution of the bond and those subsequently acquired. See Seay v. Bank of Rome, 66 Ga. 609 ; Colquitt v. Simpson, 72 Ga. 501 ; Simpson v. Mathis, 79 Ga. 159 ; 3 S.E. 646 . Compare State v. Brobston, 94 Ga. 95 ; 21 S.E. 146 . Standard Accident Ins.

Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571 (1934), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that people can have property interests in contractual agreements with the United States that are protected by due process. Accordingly, Congress cannot reduce expenditures by repudiating and abrogating the contractual obligations of the United States.

Held: that the federal law violated by petitioner was enacted not only for the protection of railroad employes and passengers on railroad trains, but *594 the public generally — that is to say, as applied to the present case, 'that the requirement of the federal Safety Appliance Act as to power-controlled brakes and their use imposed a duty upon the railroad company in respect of travelers at railroad-highway crossings;…