Cites Bowery National Bank v. Wilson — People ex reL v. Payton (50 How. Pr. 143), so far as it holds that the unearned fees of a public officer may be assigned, overruled.
The case involved a suit by the executrix of inventor Bertram C. Kenyon against Automatic Instrument Co. (Michigan) seeking royalties under a 1925 contract with Automatic Musical Instrument Co. (Delaware), which had received an assignment of rights to Kenyon's multiple disc phonograph invention and related patents. The defendant acquired the patents through a receiver's assignment during the Delaware company's receivership and bankruptcy proceedings under Chapter X. The court treated the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings as a motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint. It reasoned that the 1925 agreement created a non-assignable executory license rather than a lien on the patents, that the receiver had not adopted the contract, and that Kenyon had not filed a claim for future royalties in the receivership proceedings despite having notice of them.
In United States v. Smith, the defendant moved to quash an information charging him with using a motor vehicle without paying the federal use tax or affixing the required tax stamp, as prohibited by 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code § 3540(i). He argued that the criminal penalties violated the Fifth Amendment's due process clause and amounted to unconstitutional imprisonment for debt. The court denied the motion, holding that Congress possesses broad authority to impose taxes and attach penalties for nonpayment, including criminal sanctions reasonably related to tax collection. The opinion noted that taxes are not considered debts, so the penalties do not implicate imprisonment-for-debt concerns, and emphasized the strong presumption of constitutionality for statutes enacted by Congress. The court further observed that challenges to the wisdom or policy of such laws are not proper grounds for invalidation by a trial court.
This case involved a contract dispute between two businesses engaged in growing and selling gladiolus bulbs, where the Florida plaintiff sued the Michigan defendant for lost profits from the nondelivery of 525,000 bulbs out of orders totaling 1.3 million, and the defendant countersued for an unpaid balance on bulbs that were delivered. The contracts were advance orders explicitly made "subject to crop," and the court found they concerned a future crop grown on lands controlled by the defendant, with performance excused in whole or part due to a severe shortage caused by weather, disease, and other uncontrollable factors that reduced output well below normal expectations. The defendant prorated available bulbs across contracts but was found to have done so unfairly with respect to one customer, leading the court to award the plaintiff $3,256.95 in damages while also granting the defendant $1,125 on the counterclaim. The core reasoning rested on trade custom interpreting "subject to crop" language, legal rules excusing performance for nonexistence of specific goods without the seller's fault, and the requirement for equitable pro rata distribution among good-faith contracts when a grower faces unavoidable crop failure.
This case concerned a libel for condemnation proceeding under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act involving 26 dozen bottles of Wheatamin Brand Cevigards. The court addressed whether Section 334(a) of Title 21 U.S.C.A. permits removal of the case for trial to the district that includes the claimant's principal place of business, or only to another district of reasonable proximity to that location. Relying on principles of statutory construction from Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Strong Mfg. Co. and citing similar decisions in other districts, the court concluded that the statute does not authorize removal to the claimant's own district. The case was therefore remanded to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
The case involved the Israelite House of David, a voluntary religious association operating various businesses, seeking a refund of federal employment taxes assessed under the Social Security Act for the value of food, clothing, housing, and medical care provided to its working members. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the taxes were not due because the members were not "employees" for tax purposes. The core reasoning was that no legal employer-employee relationship existed, as members performed services as absolute gifts without wages or time records, benefits were tied solely to membership rather than work performed, and the association had no right to control the manner of members' tasks. The court applied Treasury regulations and precedents emphasizing the need for actual wages and the right to direct work methods.
This case involved former employees of a Michigan-based specialty merchandise business suing their employer for unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, along with penalties. The court found that the defendant's business, which involved local wholesale and retail sales, vending machines, and trading stamps primarily within Michigan, was not engaged in interstate commerce. The judge reasoned that the interstate shipments ended at the defendant's warehouse, and the employees' duties in handling goods, sales, and machines were predominantly local and not substantial enough to bring them under the Act's coverage, as the business was essentially intrastate with only a minor percentage of wholesale activity. Citing precedents like Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., the court held that the Act does not extend to local businesses merely affecting commerce. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed.
labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power
