Skip to content

Us Supreme Court Court February 1920 Judgments

Browse smarter

Open an 18-section brief on any judgment

Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.

  • AI Brief & Ask
  • Semantic AI Search
  • Devil's Bench

Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.

Feb 02 1920

Brooks-scanlon Co. Vs. Railroad Commission

Court: US Supreme Court

Decided on: Feb-02-1920

Brooks-Scanlon Co. v. Railroad Commission - 251 U.S. 396 (1920) U.S. Supreme Court Brooks-Scanlon Co. v. Railroad Commission, 251 U.S. 396 (1920) Brooks-Scanlon Company v. Railroad Commission of Louisiana No. 38 Argued January 6, 1920 Decided February 2, 1920 251 U.S. 396 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA Syllabus A common carrier cannot, under the Fourteenth Amendment, be compelled by a state to continue operation of its railroad at a loss. P. 251 U. S. 399 . Where a railroad serving the public is owned and operated by a lumber company in connection with its lumber business, it is the business of the railroad, and not the entire business of the company, which determines whether the railroad may be abandoned as unprofitable. Id. A mere suggestion in the opinion of a state court, unsupported by evidence, cannot be taken as a finding of fact in determining the scope and ground of its decision. Id. Nor can a statement that the court has not juri...


Feb 02 1920

Henry Vs. United States

Court: US Supreme Court

Decided on: Feb-02-1920

Henry v. United States - 251 U.S. 393 (1920) U.S. Supreme Court Henry v. United States, 251 U.S. 393 (1920) Henry v. United States No. 12 Argued January 21, 1920 Decided February 2, 1920 251 U.S. 393 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus A legacy paid over by the executor to the legatee, or to himself as trustee under the will for an ascertained beneficiary, is vested in possession within the meaning of the tax refunding Act of June 27, 1902, c. 11, 3, 32 Stat. 406, although the payments are made before expiration of the time for proving claims against the estate. 53 Ct.Clms. 641 affirmed. THE case is stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a suit to recover taxes paid under the Spanish War Revenue Act of June 13, 1898, c. 448, 29, 30, 30 Stat. 448, 464, 465, repealed by the Act of April 12, 1902, c. 500, 7, 32 Stat. 96, 97, the repeal to take effect on July 1, 1902. By the Act of June 27, 1902, c. 1160, 3, 32 Stat. 40...


  • ‹ Prev
  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial