Court : US Supreme Court
Henley v. Myers - 215 U.S. 373 (1910) U.S. Supreme Court Henley v. Myers, 215 U.S. 373 (1910) Henley v. Myers No. 72 Submitted December 10, 1909 Decided January 3, 1910 215 U.S. 373 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS Syllabus The state creating a corporation may determine how transfers of its stock shall be made and evidenced, and a change in the law imposing no restraint upon the transfer, but only affecting the method of procedure, does not impair the obligation of the charter contract within the meaning of the contract clause of the federal Constitution, and so held that the corporation law of Kansas of 1899 is not void as to stockholders who purchased stock prior thereto and sold it thereafter, because it required a statement of the transfer of stock to be filed in the office of the Secretary of State in order to relieve the transferor of stockholder's liability, the act not depriving him of any defense that might be made at the time the stock was acquire...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Pitcairn Coal Co. - 215 U.S. 481 (1910) U.S. Supreme Court Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Pitcairn Coal Co., 215 U.S. 481 (1910) Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. Pitcairn Coal Company No. 289 Argued October 18, 19, 1909 Decided January 10, 1910 215 U.S. 481 ERROR TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Regulations which are primarily within the competency of the Interstate Commerce Commission are not subject to judicial supervision or enforcement until that body has been properly afforded an opportunity to exert its administrative functions. Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426 , applied, and Southern Railway Co. v. Tift, 206 U. S. 428 , distinguished. The distribution to shippers of coal cars including those owned by the shippers and those used by the carrier for its own fuel is a matter involving preference and discrimination and within the competency of the Interstate ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Babbitt v. Dutcher - 216 U.S. 102 (1910) U.S. Supreme Court Babbitt v. Dutcher, 216 U.S. 102 (1910) Babbitt v. Dutcher No. 39 Argued November 29, 1909 Decided February 21, 1910 216 U.S. 102 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus Corporate record and stock-books of a corporation adjudicated a bankrupt pass to the trustee and, where there is no adverse holding, the bankruptcy court can compel their delivery by summary proceeding. In a case in which the original court of bankruptcy can act summarily, another court of bankruptcy, sitting in another district, can do so in aid of the court of original jurisdiction. The Randolph-Macon Coal Company was a Missouri corporation, and was duly adjudicated a bankrupt March 26, 1907, in proceedings instituted in the District Court of the United States, in and for the Eastern Division of the Eastern Judicial District of Missouri. Byron F. Babbitt was duly appointed trustee in ba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Ballinger v. Frost - 216 U.S. 240 (1910) U.S. Supreme Court Ballinger v. Frost, 216 U.S. 240 (1910) Ballinger v. Frost No. 54 Argued December 8, 1909 Decided February 21, 1910 216 U.S. 240 ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus The power of supervision and correction vested in the Secretary of the Interior over Indian allotments is not unlimited and arbitrary; it cannot be exercised to deprive any person of land the title to which has lawfully vested. However reluctant the courts may be to interfere with the executive department, they must prevent attempted deprivation of lawfully acquired property, and it is their duty to see that rights which have become vested pursuant to legislation of Congress are not disturbed by any action of an executive officer. Page 216 U. S. 241 The head of a department of the government is bound by the provisions of congressional legislation, which he cannot violate, however laudable may be his motives. After all...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 6Ind.Cas.457
1. These appeals are directed against awards made under the Land Acquisition Act, in respect of lands acquired by the Government of Eastern Bengal and Assam, for extension of the compound of St. Gregory's School in the town of Dacca. The total area acquired measures four bighas three cottahs and 18 dhurs; for the major portion the Collector made his award at the rate of Rs. 1,200 per bigha, for part of the land, comprised in one of these cases, the Collector allowed Rs. 2,550 inclusive of buildings thereon. The claimants were dissatisfied with the award, and obtained references to the Special Judge, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Before the Special Judge it appears to have been contended, first, that the acquisition-proceedings were illegal, and, secondly, that the amount awarded was too low. The Special Judge declined to entertain the first objection and overruled the second on the merits. In this view he substantially affirmed the award of the Collector. The claimants ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 7Ind.Cas.627
1. The question of law raised in this appeal is of considerable importance, and relates to the amount of Court-fee payable upon a plaint presented for the institution of a suit under Section 108 of the Bengal Tenancy Act., The first paragraph of that section provides, that a suit may be instituted before a Revenue Officer at any time within three months from the date of the certificate of the final publication of the record-of-rights under Sub-Section 2 of Section 103 A; such suit is instituted by the presentation of a plaint on stamped paper for the decision of any dispute regarding any entry which a Revenue Officer has made in, or any omission which the said officer has made from, the record, whether such dispute is between the landlord and tenant, or between landlords of the same or of neighbouring Estates, or between tenant and tenant, or as to whether the relationship of landlord and tenant, exists, or as to whether land held rent-free is properly so held, or as to any other matte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1912)22MLJ490
Benson, J.1. In this case fourteen persons were tried by a Special Bench of this Court, constituted under Section 6(6) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, for an offence, punishable under Section 121 A, Indian Penal Code (conspiring to commit certain offences against the State), and also with abetting the murder of Mr. Ashe. The Special Bench acquitted all the accused on the latter charge. The majority of the Court (Sir Arnold White, C.J. and Ayling, J.) convicted the first seven and the 14th accused of the offence, charged under Section 121 A and acquitted the remainder. The third Judge of the Special Bench (Sankaran Nair, J.) convicted the 1st, 2nd, 6th and 14th accused and acquitted the remainder. The late Advocate-General has given a certificate under Clause 26 of the Amended Letters Patent of 1865 to the effect that the decision of the Court on certain specified points of law requires further consideration. The present Advocate-General, who, as Public Prosecutor, appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1912)14BOMLR511
Beaman J.1. The material facts and date may be very briefly stated.2. In 1894 Balkrishna brought a suit against Mahomed Medhi, obtained a decree for the sum of Rs. 7000, and attached the right, title and interest of his debtor in certain properties, the said right, title and interest being variously computed in the arguments before me at from one to three lacs in the year 1896. Shortly after that attachment, the judgment-debtor Mahomed Medhi assigned the whole of his right, title and interest to the defendant in this suit Lady Janbai. I may neglect the decree in attachment of Moti Gulabdas, which attachment was subsequent to the private assignment to the defendant. In 1898 the present plaintiff brought a suit and obtained a decree against his debtor Mahomed Medhi. In 1899 Mahomed Medhi took the benefit of the Insolvency Act, and his insolvency with a short break, which is not material to any point or argument in this case, continued until Balkrishna's attachment was finally raised in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1912)ILR35Mad397
Benson, J.1. In this case fourteen persons were tried by a Special Bench of this Court, constituted under Section 6(b) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, for an offence punishable under Section 121A, Indian Penal Code (conspiring to commit certain offences against the State), and also with abetting the murder of Mr. Ashe. The Special Bench acquitted all the accused on the latter charge. The majority of the Court (Sir Arnold White, C.J., and Ayling, J.) convicted the first seven and the fourteenth accused of the offence charged under Section 121-A and acquitted the remainder. The third Judge of the Special Bench (Sankaran-Nair, J.) convicted the first, second, sixth and fourteenth accused and acquitted the remainder. The late Advocate-General has given a certificate under Clause 26 of the Amended Letters Patent of 1865 to the effect that the decision of the Court on certain specified points of law requires farther consideration. The present Advocate-General, who, as Public ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 14Ind.Cas.896
Ralph Benson, J.1. In this case fourteen persons were tried by a Special Bench of this Court, constituted under Section 6(b) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 108, for an offence punishable under Section 121A, Indian Penal Code (conspiring to commit certain offences against the State), and also with abetting the murder of Mr. Ashe. The Special Bench acquitted all the accused on the latter charge. The majority of the Court (Sir Arnold White, C.J., and Ayling, J.,) convicted the first seven and the 14th accused of the offence charged under Section 121A and acquitted the remainder. The third Judge of the Special Bench (Sankaran Nair, J.,) convicted the 1st, 2nd, 6th and 14th accused and acquitted the remainder. The late Advocate-General has given a certificate under Clause 26 of the Amended Letters Patent of 1865 to the effect that the decision of the Court on certain specified points of law requires further consideration. The present Advocate-General, who, as Public Prosecutor, a...
Tag this Judgment!