Volume 305 — United States Reports

from pages 47-49 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Thomas G. Haight, of Jersey City, N.J., and John H. Bruninga and John H. Sutherland, both of St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiffs. Messrs. A. C. Denison and F. O. Richey, both of Cleveland, Ohio, for respondent.

Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Kellogg Company was not violating any trademark or unfair competition laws when it manufactured its own Shredded Wheat breakfast cereal, which had originally been invented by the National Biscuit Company (later called Nabisco). Kellogg's version of the product was of an essentially identical shape, and was also marketed as "Shredded Wheat"; but Nabisco's patents had expired, and its trademark application for the term "Shredded Wheat" had been turned down as a descriptive, non-trademarkable term.

Held: however, that the earlier decree was a “prior adjudication of the matters in controversy” and a bar to the later action. A few years later this Court had occasion to examine again the question of the effect of a former adjudication by a United States Circuit' Court in a case where this Court assumed the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the parties but not of the subject matter.

Lyeth v. Hoey, 305 U.S. 188 (1938), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that property received by an heir under a settlement agreement resolving a dispute over the decedent's will is property acquired by "inheritance," which exempts the value of such property from the income tax.

Held: however, that the court in which the Commissioner’s original petition was filed thereby acquired jurisdiction and that the avoidance of the orders made by the disqualification of the judge who entered them did not disenable a qualified judge thereafter from entering valid orders based on the petition.

Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 (1938), was a United States Supreme Court decision holding that states which provided a school to White students had to provide in-state education to Black students as well. States could satisfy this requirement by allowing Black and White students to attend the same school or creating a second school for Black students.

Ford Motor Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 364 (1939), is an 8-to-0 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that an administrative agency of the United States government, seeking enforcement of its orders, cannot withdraw its petition or the transcript of the administrative hearing once these have been submitted to the appropriate court. Whether the agency should be permitted to withdraw its petition is a decision for the court of appeals, the Supreme Court said.

Held: further, that as such authorization had not been shown, the United States had not consented to the maintenance of the condemnation suit against it; that the court was without jurisdiction to- proceed; and that the fact that removal from the state court to the federal court had been obtained by the United' States Attorney by stipulation had not effected a general appearance.

Held: suits to recover the overpayments are upon quasi contracts or contracts “implied in law” not within the jurisdiction conferred on the Court of Claims by § 145(1) of the Judicial Code, 28 U. S. C. § 250 (1). 1 Merritt v. United States, 267 U. S. 338 ; *419 United States v. Minnesota Investment Co., 271 U. S. 212 ; Goodyear Co. v. United States, 276 U. S. 287 .

Held: quasi in rem, and the jurisdiction acquired upon the filing of the trustees’ account is exclusive. The District Court for the Western District of *468 Pennsylvania is without jurisdiction of the suit subsequently brought for the same relief, and the petitioners were properly enjoined from further proceeding in that court.

Held: any rule of court to the contrary notwithstanding.” 7 Our attention has not been directed to any more authoritative Arkansas ruling governing the procedural effect of a request for a peremptory instruction without more, than the decision of the Supreme Court of Arkansas in A. B. Smith Lumber Co. v. Portis Bros., 140 Ark. 356 ; 215 S. W. 590 .

Held: the order is a valid regulation of rates for warehousing services which affect transportation tariffs, it cannot be unconstitutional. Appellants' contention of unconstitutionality is predicated on the invalidity of the order under the Interstate Commerce Act.

Held: As between the public and the railroad, a switch track built for industrial purposes and across public thoroughfares becomes a part of the main line of the system which it joins and is subject to governmental regulation in the public interest, even though it was built by private funds and for the most part on private property; appellant uses the switch track in question for its own benefit to serve industries…