This antitrust case under the Sherman and Clayton Acts alleged that Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. and other defendants conspired to destroy the plaintiffs' movie theater business in Atlantic City, New Jersey, seeking treble damages, an injunction, and other relief. Warner Bros. moved to quash service of summons, arguing it was not subject to venue in the district because it neither resided there, was found there, nor transacted business there. The court granted the motion and quashed service, holding that Warner Bros.' ownership of a subsidiary that distributed its films in New Jersey did not amount to transacting business under 15 U.S.C.A. § 22. The decision followed a nearly identical prior ruling and rejected the claim that circulation of the defendant's property through another entity established jurisdiction.
The case involved a request by Thermo-Plastics Corp. for a declaratory judgment that two patents owned by International Pulverizing Corp. were invalid and not infringed by the plaintiff's grinding mills. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no actual controversy because it had not charged the plaintiff with infringement. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, holding that the evidence did not show any affirmative claim of infringement by the patent holder, which is required to establish an actual controversy under the Declaratory Judgment Act.
The case involved a criminal indictment charging the defendant with willfully attempting to evade federal income tax for 1930 by filing a false return, in violation of the Revenue Act of 1928. The indictment was returned on August 27, 1937, more than six years after the March 14, 1931 filing date, and the defendant moved to dismiss on statute-of-limitations grounds. The applicable six-year limitations period under 18 U.S.C.A. § 585 excludes time during which the defendant is "absent" from the district, and the government contended that the defendant's 189 days of temporary trips outside the district for business, official duties, or pleasure should be tolled. The court held that the word "absent" in the statute refers to absences that interfere with prosecution or resemble fleeing from justice, not routine temporary departures by a district resident who maintains a home there, and therefore the limitations period had expired. The first count of the indictment was dismissed.
The case concerned a dispute in Lena Jacobson's bankruptcy over a life insurance policy originally issued on her husband's life, assigned first to him and then to her, with a net cash surrender value of about $107 at the time of her adjudication as bankrupt. The trustee claimed the entire policy as an estate asset, while the bankrupt sought to retain it by paying only that value under the Bankruptcy Act. The court held that under section 70a(5) of the Act, the trustee was entitled solely to the net cash surrender value as of the petition date, allowing the bankrupt to keep the policy upon payment. This conclusion rested on Supreme Court precedents such as Burlingham v. Crouse and a directly analogous Fifth Circuit decision in Curtis v. Humphrey, which extended the statutory right to retain policies to assignees who are natural persons.
The case concerned a suit by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to recover the unpaid balance on a promissory note originally given to an insolvent national bank, with defendants asserting set-off rights based on their deposits and claiming the note's transfer created an unlawful preference. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction due to the amount in controversy being under $3,000, while the plaintiff moved to strike the answer and defenses as sham, and the United States sought to intervene as a party plaintiff. The court granted the United States' intervention, holding that RFC is a federal instrumentality whose actions allow the United States to sue as principal under 28 USCA § 41(1), thereby establishing jurisdiction despite the small amount. It denied the motion to dismiss and denied striking the defenses, reasoning that the pleadings raised factual issues regarding the transfer, insolvency notice, and set-off rights that required trial.
In this case, a furniture manufacturing company sought a temporary injunction against a labor union for picketing its Jersey City establishment with signs alleging a strike, unfair wages, and anti-union practices, claiming the activity interfered with business and involved violence or disturbances. After removal from state court to federal district court, the judge applied the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which limits federal courts' authority to enjoin activities in labor disputes. The court found no evidence of violence, threats, fraud, or unlawful acts, noting that the picketing involved at most two peaceful patrollers and was protected as giving publicity to a labor dispute under the statute. The motion for a temporary injunction was denied.
