Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Kahriger - 345 U.S. 22 (1953) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Kahriger, 345 U.S. 22 (1953) United States v. Kahriger No. 167 Argued December 16-17, 1952 Decided March 9, 1953 345 U.S. 22 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus Provisions of the Revenue Act of 1951, 26 U.S.C. 3285-3294, levy an occupational tax of $50 per year on persons engaged in the business of accepting wagers; require such persons to register with the Collector of Internal Revenue, and penalize failure to pay the tax and to register. Held: 1. The tax is a valid exercise of the federal taxing power, and is not unconstitutional as an infringement by the Federal Government on the police powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment. Pp. 345 U. S. 23 -31. (a) The fact that the tax has a regulatory effect upon wagering, and brings about a result that is beyond the direct legislative power of Congress, does not render it ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad979; [1951]21CompCas297(Mad); (1951)1MLJ277
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. These two petitions raise the question of the validity of the Madras Electricity Supply Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1949 (Act XLIII of 1949) (hereinafter called the impugned Act), and they were therefore heard together. In C.M.P. No. 975 of 1951 the petitioner is the Narasaraopeta Electric Corporation Limited by its Managing Director V.V. Sastry and the Company was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The petitioner in C.M.P. No. 4697 of 1951 is the Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation Limited, by its Vice-chairman, Appana Rangarao and this Company was also incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The petitioners in both the petitions obtained licences for the supply of electricity under the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The memorandum of association of the two companies authorised each company not only to carry on the business of electricity supply but also several other objects enabling the company to carry on trade or busi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
Lord Porter: The appellant company are incorporated in Gibraltar and carry on business as an investment company. The appellant, John Mackintosh, is a director of that company. In May 1935 the appellants were anxious to borrow a large sum of Spanish pesetas as they did not wish to convert English pounds sterling into that currency, and at that time the respondent had on deposit at Barclays Bank in Gibraltar a credit of over 500,000 pesetas standing in the names of Messrs. Carrara King and Marsh who were trustees of her late husband. The respondent is an old lady 82 years of age, whose business affairs were managed by her nephew one Eugenic Gross. Mr. King, who was a friend of both Mr. Mackintosh and the respondent, having heard that the appellants desired to borrow pesetas approached Mr. Mackintosh and arranged with him that the respondent should lend and the appellants borrow the sum of 500,000 pesetas at 3 per cent. interest per annum. Accordingly the appellants executed a bond dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
Lord Maugham: This is an appeal by the Attorney-General of Alberta from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada (Duff C.J., Cannon, Crocket, Davis, Kerwin and Hudson JJ.) dated 4th March 1938 on a reference to them by the Governor-General of Canada under S. 55, Supreme Court Act (Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, c. 35). The subject of the reference and of this appeal is the power of the Legislature of the Province of Alberta to enact three Bills which had been presented to the Lieutenant-Governor of Alberta for assent on 5th October 1937, and reserved by him for the signification of the Governor-General's pleasure. By order in Council dated 2nd November 1937 the Governor-General referred the following questions to the Supreme Court of Canada for hearing and consideration : 1. Is Bill No. 1, entitled ' an Act respecting the Taxation of Banks' or any of the provisions thereof and in what particular or particulars or to what extent intra vires of the Legislature of the Province of Albe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Smyth v. United States - 302 U.S. 329 (1937) U.S. Supreme Court Smyth v. United States, 302 U.S. 329 (1937) Smyth v. United States No. 42 Argued November 18, 19, 1937 Decided December 13, 1937 * 302 U.S. 329 CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus 1. Bonds of the United States promising payment of principal and interest in United States gold coin of the standard of value in force at the time of their issuance (25.8 grains of gold 9/10ths fine per dollar) were called by the Secretary of the Treasury for redemption and payment prior to their stated day of maturity, pursuant to provisions therein which reserved this right to the United States to be exercised through a published notice, and which declared that, from the date of redemption designated in such notice, interest on the called bonds should cease, and all coupons thereon maturing after that date should be void. Prior to the notices, the Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, providing for the discharge of "gold clause" ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Perry v. United States - 294 U.S. 330 (1935) U.S. Supreme Court Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330 (1935) Perry v. United States No. 532 Argued January 10, 11, 1935 Decided February 18, 1935 * 294 U.S. 330 CERTIFICATE FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus 1. A provision in a Government bond for payment of principal and interest "in United States gold coin of the present standard of value" must be fairly construed, and its reasonable import is an assurance by the Government that the bondholder will not suffer loss through depreciation of the medium of payment. P. 294 U. S. 348 . 2. The Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, insofar as it undertakes to nullify such gold clauses in obligations of the United States and provides that such obligations shall be discharged by payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts, is unconstitutional. P. 294 U. S. 349 . 3. Congress cannot use its power to regulat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. - 294 U.S. 240 (1935) U.S. Supreme Court Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 294 U.S. 240 (1935) Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. Nos. 270, 471 and 472 Argued January 8, 9, 10, 1935 Decided February 18, 1935 * 294 U.S. 240 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK Syllabus 1. A bond for the future payment of a stated number of dollars in gold coin of the United States "of or equivalent to the standard of weight and fineness existing" on the date of the bond, or for payment in gold coin of the United States "of the standard of weight and fineness prevailing" on the date of the bond, is not a contract for payment in gold coin as a commodity, or in bullion ( cf. Bronson v. Rodes, 7 Wall. at p. 74 U. S. 250 ), but is a contract for payment in money. Pp. 294 U. S. 298 -302. 2. Such "gold clauses" are intended to afford a definite standard or measure of value, and thus to protect against depreciation of the currency and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
Lord Blanesburgh: This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Cyprus affirming the judgment of the District Court of Nicosia at the trial. The appellants, defendants in the action, are the Ottoman Bank of Nicosia, and the respondent, the plaintiff, is a former official of the bank. Prior to his retirement on 31st December 1931 the respondent was serving in the Larnaca branch in Cyprus and the one question which survives for determination upon the present appeal is whether the pension to which, in accordance with the terms of his employment, he then became entitled is, as both Courts in Cyprus have held, a pension payable in Turkish gold pounds translated into Cyprus currency at the exchange of the day, or whether, as the appellant bank contends, it is due only in pounds of Turkish currency or, whether so or not is in Cyprus payable only in the currency of the Island at the fixed rate of exchange of 100 Cyprus for 110 Turkish pounds arid that whether the salary pounds be g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell - 290 U.S. 398 (1934) U.S. Supreme Court Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934) Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell No. 370 Argued November 8, 9, 1933 Decided January 8, 1934 290 U.S. 398 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA Syllabus 1. Emergency does not increase constitutional power, nor diminish constitutional restrictions. P. 290 U. S. 425 . 2. Emergency may, however, furnish occasion for exercise of power possessed. P. 290 U. S. 426 . 3. The clause providing that no State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts is not to be applied with literal exactness, like a mathematical formula, but is one of the broad clauses of the Constitution which require construction to fill out details. Pp. 290 U. S. 426 , 290 U. S. 428 . 4. The necessity of construction of the contract clause is not obviated by its association in the same section with other and more specific provisions which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Stever - 222 U.S. 167 (1911) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Stever, 222 U.S. 167 (1911) United States v. Stever No. 448 Argued October 20, 1911 Decided December 4, 1911 222 U.S. 167 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY Syllabus Congress will not be supposed to make the same offense indictable and punishable under either of two distinct provisions under which the procedure and the penalties are different. Where general words follow words descriptive of particular actions they should, unless clearly manifested to the contrary, be construed as applicable to cases or matters of like kind with those described by the particular words. Sections 3894 and 5480, Rev.Stat., each apply to different offenses, and are to be construed as legislation in pari materia. Section 3894, Rev.Stat., relates particularly to lottery schemes, and the general words "concerning schemes devised for the purpose of obtaining money ...
Tag this Judgment!