Volume 296 — United States Reports

Held: managed and disposed of as an active trust, the net income thereof to be paid to the decedent’s daughter during her life, with remainder over to the persons named. The trustee was given discretionary power to terminate the trust whenever the trustee might deem it wise to do so, whereupon the estate was to revert to the grantor.

Held: as is conceded here, that the suit brought against officers of the government in their official capacities is in substance a suit against the United States authorized, if at all, by § 9 (a) of the Trading with the Enemy Act. See Banco Mexicano v. Deutsche Bank, 263 U. S. 591 ; Henkels v. Sutherland, 271 U. S. 298 .

Held: and the Circuit Court of Appeals concurred, that the promoters were not answerable in respect of the no par value common stock issued to them and thereafter sold by them. This Court reverses the holding and makes them liable to account for all they received for the stock. This is in the teeth of Old Dominion Copper Co. v. Lewisohn, 210 U. S. 206 . There, as here, stock was issued for property.

Pacific States Box & Basket Co. v. White, 296 U.S. 176 (1935), was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court.

Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U.S. 207 (1935), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that it cannot exert certiorari jurisdiction over a case in which there is an adequate and independent state law ground for the state court's final judgment.

Held: • None of the transactions occurring since its first decision has been to the advantage of the Tower Hill companies. The purchase of the Emerald stock was definitely harmful. Assets are hardly more than enough to pay preferred stockholders. To continue the business would allow those in control, who have shown utter disregard of rights of preferred stockholders, to speculate further at their risk alone.

Held: 3 that statutes imposing taxes are not entitled to full faith and credit. Other obligations to pay money arising under the statutes of one state must be given recognition in courts of another. Converse v. Hamilton, 224 U. S. 243 ; Broderick v. Rosner, supra; Bradford Electric Light Co. v. Clapper, supra.

United States v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287 (1935), was a case before the United States Supreme Court that concerned liquor laws and taxation. Congress placed a tax on liquor dealers who violate state liquor laws. The Court struck down the relevant portion of the Revenue Act of 1926 as an attempt to punish a state violation through taxation.

Held: has no application to a citizen of the State whose laws are complained of.

Held: in the first place, that the same power of taxation in respect of national banks exists in the territories as in the states; and, in the second place, that this power of taxation in the territories was limited by the provisions of § 5219 although in terms that section refers only to the states. 294 U. S. 204 .

Held: Under the franchise the holders of the irrigation privilege assumed control of the flow from the lake through the outlet to the bay and had power to raise or lower the. level of .the waters. They failed to comply with the duty— *514 voluntarily contracted by them in accepting the franchise — to submit plans of their works to the commissioner for approval.

Held: by the general principles of suretyship. Upon election of the employee to take compensation the employer is entitled to be subrogated to the rights of the employee against the third person. The insurer, who, as an indemnitor of the employer, and by the Act, stands in the place of the employer, is similarly entitled to subrogation.