This case was an action by the government under Section 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to enjoin a New Hampshire machine repair and construction company from violating the Act's overtime pay requirements for employees engaged in work connected to interstate commerce. The defendant admitted the Act's constitutionality and jurisdiction but contended its application was limited to only certain employees performing specific tasks at particular times, while denying any violations. The court denied the motion to dismiss and granted the injunction, holding that the statute broadly covers such employees without specific exceptions applying here, that the defendant's pleadings and conduct indicated it was not in full voluntary compliance when the suit was filed, and that injunctive relief was necessary to deter future violations even if some had ceased.
labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power
This case involved a contract dispute between the Frederick Snare Corporation, a New York contractor, and the Maine-New Hampshire Interstate Bridge Authority over payment for extra work on the foundations of a bridge across the Piscataqua River. The contractor claimed additional compensation for excavating to greater depths than indicated in the bidding plans and for other unforeseen site conditions, asserting that the plans misrepresented subsurface conditions and that the engineers' decisions were biased. The court found that the contract permitted recovery for extra costs when subsurface conditions differed materially from those shown on the plans, that the engineers could not serve as impartial arbiters due to their interest in minimizing project costs for funding agencies, and that payment should be based on the contractor's actual documented expenses. It entered a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $136,119.16 plus interest and costs.
The case involved a bankrupt who filed a voluntary petition in 1939, failed to provide indemnity for expenses or prosecute the case, resulting in dismissal for want of prosecution before any creditor notices or claims were filed; he then filed a second petition in 1940 listing the same debts. Objecting creditors challenged an unqualified discharge, and the court considered whether the first proceeding's dismissal made the debts res judicata and nondischargeable in the second. The court reversed the Referee's ruling granting an unconditional discharge, holding that precedents such as Pollet v. Cosel establish that failure to prosecute the initial petition bars discharge of scheduled claims in a later proceeding, and remanded for a qualified discharge excluding those claims.
This case involved a copyright infringement claim brought by Doll & Smith against funeral home operator Lewis Wilkinson for continuing to publish advertising cuts from their copyrighted booklet 'Publicity Guide for Funeral Directors, Funeral Series B' after their three-year service contract expired in 1936. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, finding no liability for infringement. The core reasoning was that the plaintiffs failed to provide adequate statutory notice of the copyright under 17 U.S.C.A. §§ 9 and 18, as the materials sent to the defendant consisted of loose leaves without a cover indicating copyright, and the 'DS' symbol with a circled 'c' on the cuts was too small and microscopic to be visible without magnification, leaving an innocent user without proper notice as required by precedent.
The case involved New Hampshire wholesale beverage dealers suing state officials to enjoin enforcement of liquor regulations under chapters 99 of the Laws of 1933 (as amended) and related statutes, which required out-of-state manufacturers to obtain certificates of approval, submit monthly sales reports, and pay fees in order for wholesalers to purchase their products; the plaintiffs claimed these provisions violated the Fourteenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause. The court denied the requested injunction, vacated the temporary restraining order, and dismissed the bill. It reasoned that the Twenty-First Amendment and Webb-Kenyon Act authorize states to regulate the traffic in intoxicating liquors free from Commerce Clause limitations so long as the rules are reasonable and bear a substantial relation to public health, morals, or safety, and concluded that the reporting and fee requirements met that standard without operating extraterritorially or amounting to an invalid tax.
This case involves a debtor corporation seeking court confirmation of a reorganization plan under section 77B of the Bankruptcy Act after prior receivership proceedings. The plan proposed transferring assets from the trustee to the debtor, settling bonded and unsecured debts at reduced rates with creditor assent, exchanging preferred and common stock at ratios of 4:1 and 10:1 respectively to reduce outstanding shares, and authorizing future mortgaging of corporate property to raise working capital while altering voting and dividend rights. Although majorities of both classes of stockholders had accepted the plan, the court declined to confirm it. The decision rested on findings that the plan was not fair and equitable, particularly due to vague provisions allowing the board to encumber assets without defined limits and insufficient arrangements for cash payment of administrative costs as required by the statute.
