Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-05-1942
Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co. - 314 U.S. 488 (1942) U.S. Supreme Court Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co., 314 U.S. 488 (1942) Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co. No. 49 Argued December 10, 1941 Decided January 5, 1942 314 U.S. 488 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. A corporation, engaged through a wholly owned subsidiary in the business of selling salt tablets to the canning trade, and which also Page 314 U. S. 489 owned a patent on a machine for depositing such tablets in the process of canning, made a practice of licensing canners to use its machines, but only upon condition that the tablet used with them be bought from the subsidiary. Held: (1) That this use of the patent monopoly to restrain competition in the marketing of the unpatented tablets for use with the patented machines, and to aid in the creation of a limited monopoly in the tablets not within that granted by the patent, is contrary to the public p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-05-1942
Reported in : AIR1942Bom268; (1942)44BOMLR534
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from a decision of Mr. Justice Wassoodew.2. The appellant, who was defendant No. 1 in the Courts below, is the inamdar of the village of Nevare in the Sholapur district. On November 4, 1918,. his father, who was then inamdar, executed a document, exhibit 39, by which he purported to grant to the plaintiffs a perpetual tenancy of certain land in the village on condition that they were to pay the assessment and local fund. It is not disputed that the terms of this document are such that they would! create a permanent tenancy, but unfortunately it was not registered and therefore under Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, it cannot affect the property or be received as evidence of any transaction affecting the property. The plaintiffs, however, entered upon the land by reason of this document and held possession under it until 1936 when the appellant forcibly dispossessed them. They then sued to recover possession and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-12-1942
White v. Winchester Country Club - 315 U.S. 32 (1942) U.S. Supreme Court White v. Winchester Country Club, 315 U.S. 32 (1942) White v. Winchester Country Club No. 63 Argued December 12, 1941 Decided January 12, 1942 315 U.S. 32 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT Syllabus 1 In the case of a club to which amount paid as "dues or membership fees" are taxable under 501 of the Revenue Act of 1926, as amended by 413 of the Revenue Act of 1928, payment made to it for the right to repeated and general use of a common club facility for an appreciable period of time, and not fixed by each occasion of actual use, are subject to the tax. So held of charges for certain golf and family privileges. P. 315 U. S. 41 . 2. A lone District Court decision construing an Act of Congress is not to be regarded as a well settled interpretation, and subsequent reenactments of the provision so construed are not necessarily to be taken as a legislative approval of s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-02-1942
Great Northern Ry. Co. v. United States - 315 U.S. 262 (1942) U.S. Supreme Court Great Northern Ry. Co. v. United States, 315 U.S. 262 (1942) Great Northern Railway Co. v. United States No. 149 Argued January 13, 14, 1942 Decided February 2, 1942 315 U.S. 262 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. The Right of Way Act of March 3, 1875, granting to railroads the right of way through public lands of the United States, grants an easement only, not a fee, and confers no right to oil and minerals underlying the right of way. Pp. 315 U. S. 271 , 315 U. S. 279 . 2. This construction of the Act is supported by its language, its legislative history, its early administrative interpretation, and the construction placed upon it by Congress in subsequent enactments. P. 315 U. S. 277 . 3. The general rule of construction that any ambiguity in a grant is to be resolved in favor of the sovereign grantor -- nothing passes but what is conveyed in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-27-1942
Reported in : AIR1943Bom12; (1942)44BOMLR819
Macklin, J.1. These three appeals arise out of two suits brought by one Ganesh Ramchandra and a third suit brought by the family of Laxman, who was Ramchandra's brother. Each suit was for a declaration of the right of the plaintiff to a half share in certain property alleged to belong to the family of which Ramchandra and Laxman were the two eldest members; and for a proper understanding of them it is necessary to set out the facts at some length.2. Ramchandra and Laxman went to Bombay from the Ratnagiri district more than fifty years ago and worked at the Mint; and though Laxman appears to have been the more able of the two and to have earned more money and had a better head for business, they both managed to save a certain amount of money, and they kept three joint accounts with three different banks in Bombay. Laxman, as the better business man of the two, was given a power-of-attorney by Ramchandra; and it seems that the practice of the brothers was that when any transactions affec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-09-1942
Stonite Products Co. v. Melvin Lloyd Co. - 315 U.S. 561 (1942) U.S. Supreme Court Stonite Products Co. v. Melvin Lloyd Co., 315 U.S. 561 (1942) Stonite Products Co. v. Melvin Lloyd Co. No. 321 Argued February 10, 1942 Decided March 9, 1942 315 U.S. 561 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. Venue in patent infringement suit is governed exclusively by Jud.Code 48, which provides that, in such suits, the District Courts hall have jurisdiction in the district of which the defendant is an inhabitant, or in any district in which the defendant shall have committed acts of infringement and have a regular and established place of business. P. 315 U. S. 563 . In a suit for patent infringement brought in one of two districts in the same State, an individual who has no regular and established place of business in that district and who is an inhabitant of the other district cannot properly be joined as a defendant. 2. The provision of Jud.Code...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-30-1942
Muncie Gear Works, Inc. v. Outboard Marine Co. - 315 U.S. 759 (1942) U.S. Supreme Court Muncie Gear Works, Inc. v. Outboard Marine Co., 315 U.S. 759 (1942) Muncie Gear Works, Inc. v. Outboard Marine & Manufacturing Co. No. 323 Argued February 12, 1942 Decided March 30, 1942 315 U.S. 759 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. The Court considered as a reason for the granting of certiorari to review a decision of a Circuit Court of Appeals sustaining claim of a patent as to which there was no conflict of decision, the fact that the patent dominated a substantial portion of an industry so concentrated in one circuit that a conflict of decision was unlikely. P. 315 U. S. 765 . 2. Claims 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Johnson patent No. 1,716,962, for an alleged invention to overcome cavitation in the operation of relatively large and fast outboard motors, held invalid under R.S. 4866, because of public use, or sale, of devices embodying the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-11-1942
United States v. Univis Lens Co. - 316 U.S. 241 (1942) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Univis Lens Co., 316 U.S. 241 (1942) United States v. Univis Lens Co. No. 855 Argued April 9, 10, 1942 Decided May 11, 1942 * 316 U.S. 241 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus 1. The facts establish venue for this suit in the District Court in which it was brought. P. 316 U. S. 246 . 2. Sale by a patent owner of an article which is capable of use only in practicing the patent is a relinquishment of the patent monopoly with respect to that article. P. 316 U. S. 249 . 3. A patent does not confer the right to control the resale prices of the patented articles after their sale by the patentee. P. 316 U. S. 250 . 4. The owner of a patent covering lens blanks (capable of use only in manufacturing eye glass lenses) and also (as was assumed in this case) covering the process of grinding and polishing them, by which the bl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-11-1942
United States v. Masonite Corp. - 316 U.S. 265 (1942) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Masonite Corp., 316 U.S. 265 (1942) United States v. Masonite Corporation No. 723 Argued April 9, 10, 1942 Decided May 11, 1942 316 U.S. 265 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus 1. A price-fixing combination of competitors in interstate trade violates the Sherman Act. P. 316 U. S. 274 . 2. Acceptance by competitors, without previous agreement, of an invitation to participate in a plan, the necessary consequence of which, if carried out, will be restraint of interstate commerce renders them liable as conspirators under the Sherman Act. P. 316 U. S. 275 . The fixing of prices by one member of a group pursuant to express delegation, acquiescence, or understanding of the others is no less illegal than if done by their direct joint action. P. 316 U. S. 276 . Page 316 U. S. 266 4. A combination fixing prices in interstat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-25-1942
Stewart v. United States - 316 U.S. 354 (1942) U.S. Supreme Court Stewart v. United States, 316 U.S. 354 (1942) Stewart v. United States No. 848 Argued April 27, 28, 1942 Decided May 25, 1942 316 U.S. 354 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. The findings in this case, supported by substantial evidence, establish that the Mexican grant to Castro, as confirmed by the Board of Land Commissioners, and conveying Mare Island, in San Pablo Bay, California, does not include the large area of tule marsh claimed by the petitioners in this case. P. 316 U. S. 358 . 2. Under Mexican law, the ownership of land bordering on navigable water extends to the line of the highest high tide. P. 316 U. S. 359 . 3. The decree of the Board of Land Commissioner confirming the grant to Castro and fixing the boundary is to be interpreted according to the common law in force in California at the time it was entered. Under that law, the boundary would be the...
Tag this Judgment!