Court : US Supreme Court
Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee - 288 U.S. 517 (1933) U.S. Supreme Court Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee, 288 U.S. 517 (1933) Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee No. 301 Argued January 12, 13, 1933 Decided March 13, 1933 288 U.S. 517 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Syllabus 1. A state tax (Florida Laws 1931, c. 15624) on the privilege of opening and maintaining stores fixed at so much per store without regard to value or volume of business, and increasing progressively with the number of stores maintained by the owners taxed, is not in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because of the resulting discrimination against them and in favor of owners of single and department stores or the owners of distinct stores in voluntary cooperation. State Board of Tax Comm'rs v. Jackson, 283 U. S. 527 . P. 288 U. S. 532 . 2. A state statutory provision laying a heavier privilege tax per store on the owner whose stores are in different counties than on the ow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Burnet v. Brooks - 288 U.S. 378 (1933) U.S. Supreme Court Burnet v. Brooks, 288 U.S. 378 (1933) Burnet v. Brooks No. 496 Argued February 9, 1933 Decided March 13, 1933 288 U.S. 378 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. In computing the tax on the transfer of the estate of a nonresident decedent under the Revenue Act of 1924, 301-304, that part of the gross estate was to be returned and valued "which at the time of his death is situated in the United States." Held: Page 288 U. S. 379 (1) That bonds of foreign governments and of foreign and domestic corporations and stock of foreign corporations, belonging to a nonresident alien but kept in this country at the time of his death, should be included in the computation. Pp. 288 U. S. 386 , 288 U. S. 406 . (2) A local cash deposit belonging to the decedent should likewise be included if not "deposited with any person carrying on the banking business," and therefore specifically exc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1933Bom450; (1933)35BOMLR929; 145Ind.Cas.630
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Kania. The plaintiff's are suing the defendants as their agents in respect of moneys due on account of various transactions of cotton, wheat, linseed, etc., in Bombay, for about two years up to October 20, 1922, and they ask for an account of those dealings and payment of the amount due to them. In the alternative, they ask for payment of Rs. 2,865 odd on an admission which is alleged to have been made by the defendants. The defence is that the plaintiffs' suit is barred by limitation; and that being so, it is necessary to state the relevant dates.2. The first dealing between the parties took place on August 1, 1921. There was no general agency agreement, and I think that in law the defendants were appointed as agents for the plaintiffs in respect of each particular transaction committed to them. The last dealing between the parties took place on April 4, 1922, and, in my opinion, till about that date there was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1933Mad791; (1933)65MLJ725
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. The appellant sued the Respondent, the Union Board of Narasannapet, for refund of Rs. 118-8-0 and interest thereon being the amount of house tax for 1924-25 illegally collected from him on 1st May, 1925. The suit was brought on 6th May, 1926. To the defences on the merits it is needless to refer as it has been held by both the Courts below and is no longer questioned that the levy was illegal as an essential notice was not published. The only point for decision is whether the suit was barred by limitation being brought more than six months after the date of the cause of action as provided by Section 225 of the Local Boards Act, 1920, as it stood before the amendment of 1930. The learned District Judge as held the suit barred and the plaintiff appeals.2. The appellant mainly relies on Lakshmanan Chetti v. The Union Board of Devakottai : AIR1931Mad520 , where Madhavan Nair, J. held in February, 1931, that the above section is applicable only to suits for compensat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 146Ind.Cas.499
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. The appellant sued the respondent, Union Board of Narasan napet for refund of Rs. 118-8-0 and interest thereon being the amount of house tax for 1924-25 illegally collected from him on May 1, 1925. The suit was brought on May 6, 1926. To the defences on the merits it is needless to refer as it has been held, by both the courts below and is no longer questioned that the levy was illegal as an essential, notice was not published. The only point for decision is whether the suit was barred by limitation being brought more than six months after the date of the cause of action as provided by Section 225 of the Local Boards Act, 1920, as it stood before the amendment of 1930. The learned District Judge has held the suit barred and the plaintiff appeals.2. The appellant mainly relies on Lakshmanan Chetti v. Union Board of Devakottai 132 Ind. Cas 113. 60 M.L.J.600 : 33 L.W. 532 : (1931) M.W.N. 428 : A.I.R. 1931. Mad. 520 : Ind Rul. (1931) Mad. 609, where Madhavan Nair, J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1933All597
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court, Jhansi, under Order 46, Rule 1, Civil P.C. The learned Judge has not formulated the question on which the opinion of this Court is desired. Order 46, Rule 1, requires the Court making the reference to:draw up a statement of the facts of the case and the point on which doubt is entertained.2. We gather from the order of reference that one Hussain Bux obtained on 9th June 1932, a decree for Rs. 33-8-0 against Mr. Briggen Shaw No. 14, A.T. Cavalry, C.P. Mule, Quetta, Baluchistan. The decree-holder applied on 24th June 1932, for execution of his decree by attachment of the judgment-debtor's salary which was mentioned to be Rs. 300 a month approximately. The learned Judge of the Small Cause Court at Jhansi, who had passed the decree and to whom the application for execution was made, issued a notice to the judgment-debtor to: show cause on or before the 5th August 1932 why the amount of Rs,. 39-1-0 (which i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp. - 289 U.S. 178 (1933) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp., 289 U.S. 178 (1933) United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp. Nos. 316, 317, and 318 Argued January 13, 16, 1933 Decided April 10, 1933 289 U.S. 178 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. One who is employed to invent is bound by contractual obligation to assign the patent for the invention to his employer. P. 289 U. S. 187 . Page 289 U. S. 179 2. Where the contract of employment does not contemplate invention, but an invention is made by the employee during the hour of his employment and with the aid of the employer's materials and appliances, the right of patent belongs to the employee, and the employer's interest in the invention is limited to a nonexclusive right to practice a "shop right." P. 289 U. S. 188 . 3. These principles are settled as respects private employment, and they apply also as between...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1934)66MLJ90
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit relates to two items of property. The A schedule property belongs to one Kuppuswami Padayachi and was sold to the appellant and two others on 9th December, 1922(Ex. C). The other two vendees sold their share to the plaintiff on 19th December, 1923 (Ex. D). The B schedule property belonging to one Thangavelu Padayachi was sold to the plaintiff on 27th June, 1923 (Ex. E). The properties were sold as free of encumbrance. But plaintiff found that they were both subject to a mortgage on 17th August, 1917, for Rs. 460 in favour of the 1st defendant, the Cooperative Rural Credit Society of Ulakottai Village. Default having been made under the mortgage to the Co-operative Society, it proceeded by C. C. S. I of 1922 to obtain an award from the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies. An award was passed on 31st August, 1922, directing the mortgagor to pay the amount. It was filed in Court with an execution petition, E. P. No. 16...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1933All642; 147Ind.Cas.529
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for rendition of accounts. The defendants, second party, a firm styled Mithu Lal Gopal Dass purchased 1153 bags of wheat, 9 bags of arher and 4 bags of gram on different dates between 14th June and 9th July 1924 through the agency of the defendants, first party, a firm styled Gobind Ram Brij Lal, and carrying on business as commission agents. These goods were sold by the firm of Mithu Lal. The trial Court has found that in respect of this transaction, a sum of Rs. 1,771-13-6 remained due to the firm of Mithu Lal Gopal Dass from the firm Gobind Ram Brij Lal. This finding of the learned Subordinate Judge has been accepted by both the parties in this Court. Between the 5th of July and 15th of September 1924, the firm of Mithu Lal purchased 887 bags of wheat on the various dates through the agency of the firm of Gobind Ram Brij Lal. The dispute between the parties is mainly confined to this second transaction. Mithu La...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1934Mad294; 150Ind.Cas.339
Pandalai, J.1. This appeal arises from one out of five petitions filed by the respondent, the Official Receiver of South Malabar, in the Insolvency of a firm of timber merchants to set aside under Sections 4, 53 and 54, Provincial Insolvency Act, five mortgages executed by the insolvents to various creditors before the Insolvency. Two of these petitions were settled in the first Court. Of the alienees in the other three petitions only two appealed to the District Judge who dismissed the appeals. Of these the present appeal concerns only the appellant's mortgage for Rs. 31,000 dated 13th March 1924, the subject matter of O.P. No. 16 of 1925. Prom Section 54 being one of those quoted in the petition and from the grounds stated and the principal prayer therein it would appear that the case against the appellant in both the lower Courts was that his mortgage is invalid as a fraudulent preference.2. The first Court accepted this. But the learned District Judge held that the appellant's mort...
Tag this Judgment!