Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-17-1949
..... fact, and may not have been even thought about by the settlor. to say that the settlor must have intended all the legal consequences of his acts begs the question. so construed, the section would have the same meaning as if the word "intended" had been omitted. "intended" should be given its normal, factual meaning. to intend means ..... had been brought squarely before this court in the reinecke case by the following question in the government's brief: "1. do the words of section 402(c) of the revenue act of 1921, which provide that, for the purpose of measuring the estate tax, there shall be included in the value of decedent's gross estate ..... remains for determination the fact whether the settlor did actually intend that the 1920 transfer take effect in possession or enjoyment upon the expiration of the trust at his death. section 811(c) expressly covers transfers either " in contemplation of or intended to take effect in possession or enjoyment at or after . . . death." (italics supplied.) we .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-03-1949
..... all enterprises entered into by said employer in violation of house bill #229, session 1947, general assembly of north carolina, chapter 328, 1947 session laws of north carolina, and particularly sections 2-3 & 5 thereof, and chapter 75 of the general statutes of n.c. . . . ." [ footnote 3/2 ] see note 3. [ footnote 3/3 ] the syllogism might well ..... coerce a worker to make a contract "not to join or become a member of any labor organization" as a condition of getting or holding a job in arizona. a section of the arizona code made every such contract (generally known as a "yellow dog contract") void and unenforceable. [ footnote 2 ] similarly, the arizona constitutional amendment makes void ..... they are estimated may be found in technical note, 67 monthly labor rev. no. 1, p. 50 (1948). [ footnote 2/4 ] section 2, fourth, of the 1934 amendment, 48 stat. 1187, of the railway labor act of 1926, 44 stat. 577, 45 u.s.c. 152, fourth, appears on its face to bar union shop agreements, and it has .....
Tag this Judgment!