Court : US Supreme Court
Ribnik v. McBride - 277 U.S. 350 (1928) U.S. Supreme Court Ribnik v. McBride, 277 U.S. 350 (1928) Ribnik v. McBride No. 569 Argued April 26, 27, 1928 Decided May 28, 1928 277 U.S. 350 ERROR TO THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF NEW JERSEY 1. The business of an employment agent is not one "affected with a public interest," and, under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a state cannot fix the fees which such an agent may charge for his services. P. 277 U. S. 355 . 2. The power to require a license for, and to regulate the conduct of, a business is distinct from the power to fix prices. P. 277 U. S. 358 . 3. The fact that a business lends itself peculiarly to the practice of fraud, extortion, and discrimination may be ground for regulation, but not for price-fixing. P. 277 U. S. 368 . Page 277 U. S. 351 4. In determining the constitutionality of a state price-fixing statute, the mere fact that like statutes exist in other states held not of persuasiv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Olmstead v. United States - 277 U.S. 438 (1928) U.S. Supreme Court Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928) Olmstead v. United States Nos. 493, 532 and 533 Argued February 20, 21, 1928 Decided June 4, 1928 277 U.S. 438 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. Use in evidence in a criminal trial in a federal court of an incriminating telephone conversation voluntarily conducted by the accused and secretly overheard from a tapped wire by a government officer does not compel the accused to be a witness against himself in violation of the Fifth Amendment. P. 277 U. S. 462 . 2. Evidence of a conspiracy to violate the Prohibition Act was obtained by government officers by secretly tapping the lines of a telephone company connected with the chief office and some of the residences of the conspirators, and thus clandestinely overhearing and recording their telephonic conversations concerning the conspiracy and in aid of its execution. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1928Cal566
Rankin, C.J.1. This is a Reference made to us under the provisions of Section 57, Stamp Act. It would appear that certain, instruments were presented on behalf of the holder for adjudication as to whether it was necessary that they should be stamped under Section 19, Stamp Act. The documents of which three in number are before us may be sufficiently exemplified by choosing one of the three. The one which I shall choose is a document in the form in which bills of exchange are accustomed to be couched. It is headed 'Imperial Bank of India.' It is addressed from Calcutta. It is signed as drawer by the Secretary and Treasurer and the Accountant of the Imperial Bank of India. It is addressed to the Imperial Bank of India, Lahore, as the addressee or drawee and it is made payable to a third party, the Commercial Syndicate Ltd. or order. It will be observed, upon a strict reading of the instrument, that there are two parties and only two parties-the Imperial Bank of India on the one hand and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1928Bom504; (1928)30BOMLR1104; 118Ind.Cas.241
Charles Fawcett, Kt., A.C.J.1. The plaintiff brought this suit against the Madras and Southern Maratha Railway Co. to recover a sum of Rs. 180-6-0 as damages in respect of five tins of ghee which were consigned to the defendant company at Sangli for conveyance to the plaintiff and which were wholly lost during transit. The goods were sent under a risk note inform (H), which has been amended so that in certain cases it is provided that the Railway Administration 'shall be bound to disclose to the consignor how the consignment was dealt with throughout the time it was in its possession or control and, if necessary, to give evidence thereof before the consignor is called upon to prove misconduct, but, if misconduct on the part of the Railway Administration or its servants cannot be fairly inferred from such evidence, the burden of proving such misconduct shall lie upon the consignor.' An issue was raised accordingly whether the plaintiff proves loss arising from misconduct of Railway serv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1928All561
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. In this case Bansidhar, the last male owner, died in 1878 and was succeeded by his widow Mt. Gumane. Mt. Gumane died in 1894. On her death the estate devolved on their daughter Mt. Saraswati under the Hindu law, but Bansidhar's collaterals took possession of the estate and Mt. Saraswati never got possession. In her lifetime she never sued to recover possession She died in 1920. The present plaintiffs are the sons of Mt. Saraswati and are, under the Hindu law, entitled to the estate in preference to the collaterals. The defendants are the representatives of the collaterals who took possession of the estate in 1894, and some of the defendants are transferees from them.2. The plaintiffs' suit was instituted in 1923, and they claimed that the cause of action in their favour accrued in 1920 when Mt. Saraswati the daughter died. Among other pleas the defendants raised the plea that the suit was barred by time. This plea was overruled by the Court below and the claim was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1928Cal610,113Ind.Cas.181
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case an application in revision under Section 439, Criminal P.C., has been made to the Court against an order of 13th August 1927, made by the Deputy Magistrate of Comilla under Section 145 of that Code in proceedings instituted on 9th May 1927. A rule having issued and cause being shown before the Division Bench, a reference has been made to this Full Beach. Three points are formulated in the order of reference, viz.-(1) Do the words 'actual possession' in Sub-section (1), Section 145, Civil P.C., mean actual personal physical possession even though wrongful, e.g., that of a recent trespasser in actual physical possession at the time of the proceedings under Section 145.(2) Does the word 'dispute' in the same subsection mean actual disagreement existing between the parties at the time of the proceedings under Section 145 even though the question as to the right to possession has already been decided by a civil Court.(3) Has the law been correctly laid down in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1928Cal640
Rankin, C.J.1. This is a rule calling upon the respondents to show cause why a certain memorandum of appeal presented to this Court on 30th April 1928 should not be accepted and registered. The question raised is whether or not the applicants have a right of appeal from the decision of a single Judge sitting in second appeal in the absence of a certificate from him that the case is a fit one for appeal. This question arises upon the new Letters Patent which came into effect on 14th January 1928.2. The facts are that the suit was instituted on 7th October 1920 and that after an appeal to the District Court asecond appeal was filed in this High Court by the present applicants on 4th October 1926. Under certain rules of this Court it was laid before Mallik, J. for disposal on or about 4th April 1928, and on that date the appeal was dismissed the learned Judge refusing to declare that the case was a fit one for a further appeal.3. In these circumstances it is plain enough that the applican...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 113Ind.Cas.49
George Claus Rankin, C.J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause why a certain memorandum of appeal presented to this Court on the 30th April, 1928, should not be accepted and registered. The question raised is whether or not the applicants have a right of appeal from the decision of a single Judge sitting in second appeal in the absence of a certificate from him that the case is a fit one for appeal. This question arises upon the new Letters Patent which came into effect on the 14th January, 1928.2. The facts are that the suit was instituted on 7th October, 1920, and that after an appeal to the District Court a second appeal was filed in the High Court by the present applicants on 4th October, 1926. Under certain ruled of this Court it was laid before Mr. Justice Mallik for disposal on or about the 4th April, 1928, and on that date the appeal was dismissed, the learned Judge refusing to declare that the case was a fit one for a further appeal.3. In these circumsta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1929Cal599
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, we have to deal with a husband's petition for divorce filed in this Court under the Indian Divorce Act, on 20th January 1928. The petitioner was apparently born in a part of Poland, which has been referred to as being at that time German Poland. It appears that when he was very young, only 2 or 3 years old, his family removed to Berlin and when the petitioner was about 27, namely, in 1912, he went to London. In 1914, he was married in London to the respondent. It appears that for a time he went to New York, and afterwards to Honolulu. In 1916, he went to New Zealand, where, apparently, his wife's people had some property or connexions. His evidence is that he had been endeavoring to do business in New Zealand in connexion with exportation of goods from Germany. But, as the political condition after the war was not favourable for that kind of business, he, in 1923, abandoned all hopes of continuing that business in New Zealand and accordingly he removed with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1929)57MLJ219
Tiruvenkatachariar, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of Mr. Justice Odgers dismissing with costs S.A. No. 401 of 1922. The plaintiff is the appellant before us and the main question involved in this appeal is whether the suit properties which originally belonged to one Panchanathier were by his will, dated 8th January, 1898 (Ex. A in the case) dedicated absolutely for the performance of a charity styled by him as Dwadasi Dharmam and the persons expressly nominated by him in the will for the conduct of the said charity, viz., his nephews Venkataramier and Sivaswami were constituted as mere trustees for the performance of the said charity or whether under the said will Panchanathier bequeathed the suit properties to Venkataramier personally subject to a trust in favour of the said charity which was to be conducted by him and after his death by his younger brother Sivaswami and after the latter's death by their heirs in perpetuity.2. The plaintiff's case is that the prop...
Tag this Judgment!