Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. P. Lorillard Co. - 267 U.S. 471 (1925) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. P. Lorillard Co., 267 U.S. 471 (1925) United States v. P. Lorillard Company No. 319 Argued March 13, 1925 Decided March 23, 1925 267 U.S. 471 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus By Rev.Stats. 3386, as amended, a drawback on tobacco, etc., subsequently exported, on which the tax has been paid by affixing stamps before removal from the factory, is allowed "equal in amount to the value of the stamps found to have been so affixed." Held applicable to an additional tax on cigarettes imposed by the Act of February 24, 1919, payment of which would have been treated in practice as evidenced by the stamps already on the goods, if they had not been removed, but which, in view of their removal, took the form of a "floor tax." C. 18, Title VII, 700, 702, 40 Stat. 1057, 1116. P. 267 U. S. 473 . 58 Ct.Cls. 541 affirmed. Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims allowing recovery, b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Lewis v. Roberts - 267 U.S. 467 (1925) U.S. Supreme Court Lewis v. Roberts, 267 U.S. 467 (1925) Lewis v. Roberts No. 284 Argued January 29, 1925 Decided March 16, 1925 267 U.S. 467 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Under 63a of the Bankruptcy Act, including among provable debts "(1) a fixed liability, as evidenced by a judgment . . absolutely owing at the time of the filing of the petition . . . ," a judgment founded on a tort (personal injuries caused by negligence) is a provable claim. P. 267 U. S. 468 . 294 F. 171 reversed. Page 267 U. S. 468 Certiorari to a decree of the circuit court of appeals affirming a decree of the district court which confirmed an order of a referee in bankruptcy disallowing the petitioner's claim. MR. JUSTICE SANFORD delivered the opinion of the Court. The petitioner, Lewis, recovered a judgment against the Montevallo Mining Company for personal injuries caused by its negligence. The company was th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Olson v. United States Spruce Production Corp. - 267 U.S. 462 (1925) U.S. Supreme Court Olson v. United States Spruce Production Corp., 267 U.S. 462 (1925) Olson v. United States Spruce Production Corporation No. 128 Argued March 5, 6, 1925 Decided March 16, 1925 267 U.S. 462 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON Syllabus 1. Where a federal statute excludes jurisdiction in state well as federal courts, judgment of a district court dismissing the case for that reason is not reviewable here directly under Jud.Code 238. P. 267 U. S. 467 . 2. The Dent Act, which provides for adjustment of certain classes of claims against the United States through the Secretary of War and by suit in the Court of Claims, did not purport to confer jurisdiction on that court over a suit against the United States Spruce Production Corporation, which, though a federal agency, is a corporation of the State of Washington. P. 267 U. S. 466 . 3. An action aga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Horowitz v. United States - 267 U.S. 458 (1925) U.S. Supreme Court Horowitz v. United States, 267 U.S. 458 (1925) Horowitz v. United States No. 74 Argued October 15, 1924 Decided March 9, 1925 267 U.S. 458 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus 1. The United States, when sued as a contractor, cannot be held liable for an obstruction to the performance of the particular contract resulting from its public and general acts as a sovereign. P. 267 U. S. 460 . 2. So held where the government, having sold silk to the claimant, did not ship it promptly, owing to an embargo placed on freight shipments of silk by the United States Railroad Administration, so that the claimant lost his opportunity to resell at a profit. 58 Ct.Cls. 189 affirmed. Page 267 U. S. 459 Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims dismissing the petition upon demurrer. MR. JUSTICE SANFORD delivered the opinion of the Court. This action was brought by Horowitz under the Tucker Act * to recover d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Lancaster v. McCarty - 267 U.S. 427 (1925) U.S. Supreme Court Lancaster v. McCarty, 267 U.S. 427 (1925) Lancaster v. McCarty No. 148 Submitted December 11, 1924 Decided March 9, 1925 267 U.S. 427 ERROR TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE SECOND SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS Syllabus The second Cummins Amendment (August 9, 1916, c. 301, 39 Stat. 441), authorizing carriers to limit liability upon property received for transportation to the value declared in writing by the shipper, where the rates are based on such value pursuant to authority from the Interstate Commerce Commission, held applicable, and controlling the state law, in respect of a claim for damage to goods Page 267 U. S. 428 shipped intrastate between two points in Texas subject to tariff and classification adopted by the carrier pursuant to an order of the Commission requiring the carrier to remove discrimination against interstate commerce resulting from lower intrastate rates. Shrevep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Brooks v. United States - 267 U.S. 432 (1925) U.S. Supreme Court Brooks v. United States, 267 U.S. 432 (1925) Brooks v. United States No. 286 Argued January 30, 1925 Decided March 9, 1925 267 U.S. 432 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA Syllabus 1. The Act punishing the transportation of stolen motor vehicles in interstate or foreign commerce is within the power of Congress. P. 267 U. S. 436 . 2. The third section of this act punishes anyone who transports or causes to be transported in interstate or foreign commerce a motor vehicle knowing it to have been stolen, and the fourth section punishes the acts of receiving, storing, concealing, disposing of, etc., "any motor vehicle, moving as, or which is a part of, or which constitutes interstate or foreign commerce, knowing the same to have been stolen." Held that 4 is constitutional, since its purpose is merely to make more effective the regulation of 3, and it applies only...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Sanford & Brooks Co. v. United States - 267 U.S. 455 (1925) U.S. Supreme Court Sanford & Brooks Co. v. United States, 267 U.S. 455 (1925) Sanford & Brooks Co. v. United States No. 175 Argued January 15, 1925 Decided March 9, 1925 267 U.S. 455 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus 1. Where a government contract for dredging expressly required prompt, written protest against any order for work outside the specifications, written modification of the contract if altered materially, and written orders for extra work, held that oral protests by the contractor, a claim for additional compensation, and a favorable advisory opinion thereon by a government official, were insufficient to establish that these contract provisions were inapplicable or waived, or that a new, oral agreement for compensation quantum meruit was substituted by implication. P. 267 U. S. 457 . 2. A motion to remand to the Court of Claims for further findings should be submitted at the first term of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
GEORGE W. BUSH & SONS CO. v. MALOY - 267 U.S. 325 (1925) U.S. Supreme Court GEORGE W. BUSH & SONS CO. v. MALOY, 267 U.S. 325 (1925) 267 U.S. 325 GEORGE W. BUSH & SONS CO. v. MALOY et al., Public Service Commission of Maryland. BUCK v. KUYKENDALL, Director of Public Works of the State of Washington. Nos. 185 and 345. Decided March 2, 1925. The separate opinion of Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS. I am of opinion that the courts below reached correct conclusions in these causes. The states have spent enormous sums in constructing roads, and must continue to maintain and protect them at great cost if they are to remain fit for travel. The problems arising out of the sudden increase of motor vehicles present extraordinary difficulties. As yet nobody definitely knows what should be done. Manifestly, the exigency cannot be met through uniform rules laid down by Congress. Interstate commerce has been greatly aided-amazingly facilitated, indeed-through legislation and expenditures by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Chicago Great Western R. Co. v. Schendel - 267 U.S. 287 (1925) U.S. Supreme Court Chicago Great Western R. Co. v. Schendel, 267 U.S. 287 (1925) Chicago Great Western Railroad Company v. Schendel No. 422 Argued January 6, 1925 Decided March 2, 1925 267 U.S. 287 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Syllabus 1. Where a freight car with defective automatic coupler was moved with the train from the main line to a siding to be cut out and left there, held that the use, movement, or hauling of the car, within the meaning of the Safety Appliance Act, had not ended when a brakeman went between it and he next car to detach the chain and was injured by the movement of the car by gravity as the engine was cut off; that he was within the protection of that statute, and, under the Employer's Liability Act, his assumption of the risk, or contributory negligence in going between the cars with knowledge of the danger and without notice to the engineer did not bar his ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Cairo, Truman & Southern R. Co. v. United States - 267 U.S. 350 (1925) U.S. Supreme Court Cairo, Truman & Southern R. Co. v. United States, 267 U.S. 350 (1925) Cairo, Truman & Southern Railroad Company v. United States No. 230 Argued January 23, 1925 Decided March 2, 1925 267 U.S. 350 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus 1. An agreement between a railroad company and the Director General of Railroads for settlement and release of claims like the agreement in St. Louis, etc. R. Co. v. United States, ante, 267 U. S. 346 , considered and held within the authority of the Director General, and binding on the railroad, even if without consideration, it being under seal, and operative on the claim in question. P. 267 U. S. 351 . 2. Allegations held not sufficient to charge duress. P. 267 U. S. 352 . 58 Ct.Clms. 336 affirmed. Page 267 U. S. 351 Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims dismissing the petition on demurrer. MR. JUSTICE Brandeis delivered the opin...
Tag this Judgment!