Louie Willard Strum

The case involved a taxpayer corporation suing to recover additional federal income tax assessments for 1941 and 1942, stemming from the sale of a portion of land it had acquired in 1924. The key dispute was the proper tax basis for calculating gain or loss on the 1941 sale and for determining equity invested capital: the land's fair market value at the time of the 1924 transfer to the corporation, or its earlier 1913 value in the hands of the individual transferor (the taxpayer's founder). The court determined that the transferor lacked the required 80% control of the corporation immediately after the transfer under IRC sections 112(b)(5) and 112(h), because stock was issued directly in roughly equal shares to the founder and his son pursuant to a prior agreement, making the 1924 exchange taxable. As a result, the court held that the corporation's basis was the 1924 fair market value, allowing the taxpayer to claim a loss on the sale rather than recognizing gain under the Commissioner's lower basis.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case involved 85 employees of a private shipbuilding company suing under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime wages, damages, and attorney fees, alleging they worked over 40 hours per week without the required premium pay. The defendant had built Liberty ships and tankers under contract with the U.S. Maritime Commission for wartime use in transporting supplies and fuel, with the U.S. owning the facilities and most materials. The court held that the work constituted production of goods for interstate and foreign commerce under the Act, that expediters and sergeants of the guard were not exempt as executive or administrative employees, and that compliance with other federal agencies like the NLRB did not override the mandatory FLSA requirements, so those employees were entitled to compensation calculated per the Overnight Motor case plus damages and fees.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a libel suit brought by a married couple against a telegraph company for transmitting a telegram from the husband's former wife and children that accused the current wife of adultery and referenced unpaid alimony and family support from a prior divorce. The telegram was accepted and sent in the ordinary course of business without any actual malice by the company, which had no notice that the sender lacked privilege, and it was mistakenly opened by a third party at the delivery address. The court ruled for the defendant, holding that telegraph companies enjoy a qualified privilege when transmitting messages that protects them from liability for defamatory content absent proof of actual malice, bad faith, or knowledge that the sender was not privileged. The reasoning emphasized the legal duty of telegraph companies to promptly transmit messages under the Federal Communications Act and the impracticality of requiring them to investigate the truth or privilege of every message's contents to perform their public service efficiently.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved North Carolina plaintiffs suing a New York insurer in a Florida court on a fire insurance policy covering property in North Carolina, where the suit was filed more than twelve months after the fire despite a policy provision requiring actions to be brought within that period. The court decided that the contractual limitation was a valid and enforceable substantive defense under North Carolina law and must be recognized in Florida under principles of due process and full faith and credit, but the period would be tolled if the insurer had been absent from North Carolina and unavailable for service of process. The court further held that Florida's statute authorizing attorney's fees in insurance cases did not apply because the contract was not made or performed in Florida. The motions to strike the limitation defense and the amendment alleging the insurer's absence were both denied.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved an application by the Securities and Exchange Commission to enforce a reorganization plan for Jacksonville Gas Company under section 11(e) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 to eliminate inequity in the distribution of voting power among its security holders. The company, an operating utility and subsidiary of a registered holding company, had fixed liabilities exceeding the fair value of its assets, with capital stock holders exercising all voting control despite having no equity. The court decided that the Commission possesses authority under section 11(b)(2) to require changes in the corporate structure of an operating utility when necessary to fairly distribute voting power, and it approved the plan as fair and equitable. The core reasoning was that the Act's explicit exception for voting power distribution implies such authority, that creditors are the real owners entitled to control, and that the plan appropriately reallocates new stock to bond, debenture, and note holders while reducing excessive fixed obligations.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved the SEC alleging that defendants selling small tracts of Florida land for tung tree cultivation, paired with separate development contracts for expert planting, care, and harvesting, were offering unregistered "investment contracts" in violation of the Securities Act of 1933. The court decided that these transactions qualified as securities under the Act, requiring compliance with its registration and anti-fraud provisions. It reasoned that the sales were marketed nationwide through ads, brochures, and radio as profit-generating investments managed by others, with emphasis on expected income rather than mere land ownership, and that the closely linked sales and development agreements created schemes where purchasers relied on the promoters' expertise for returns. The integrated nature of the deals, including options for harvesting and marketing, made the land ownership secondary to the investment aspect. A preliminary injunction was issued for the registration violations under Section 5(a).

business & regulatory

This case involved an employee suing his employer, a small bakery and delicatessen owner in Florida, under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover wages, alleging the business engaged in interstate commerce. The court dismissed the complaint, holding that the defendant's minimal shipments of products to customers in Georgia, totaling about $18 per week out of $588 in total business, were too insignificant to qualify as interstate commerce under the Act. The reasoning centered on the de minimis doctrine, concluding that such negligible transactions did not fall within the statute's intent to regulate businesses affecting interstate commerce.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved telephone subscribers in Florida suing a phone company to prevent it from disconnecting their service after state law enforcement officials notified the company that the lines were being used to facilitate illegal gambling by booking wagers on horse races. The plaintiffs did not dispute the facts but sought an injunction in equity court. The court dissolved the temporary restraining order and dismissed the complaint, holding that telephone companies, though public utilities, may refuse service when they have probable cause to believe it will further illegal activities, as no one can be required to aid unlawful enterprises.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a Florida dry cleaning business operating on a cash-and-carry basis that challenged a state board order fixing minimum prices for cleaning services in Duval County under Chapter 17894, Laws of Florida, 1937, claiming the regulations deprived it of liberty without due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff argued the statute lacked a valid factual basis for invoking the police power, that the board was biased toward delivery businesses, and that the minimum prices and cash-and-carry discount were unreasonable. The court upheld the statute and order, finding that the legislature's determinations regarding public health risks, unfair competition, and industry conditions were supported by evidence and entitled to deference, that price regulation in this context fell within the state's police power as confirmed by recent Supreme Court precedents such as Nebbia v. New York, and that debatable questions of reasonableness or policy belonged to the legislature rather than the courts. The court entered judgment declaring the statute valid and enforceable against the plaintiff.

business & regulatory

The case involved a motor carrier seeking to prevent the Florida Railroad Commission from enforcing a state law limiting truck loads to 12,000 pounds during interstate operations. The plaintiff argued that the federal Motor Carrier Act of 1935 had preempted state regulation of interstate motor carriers, including on vehicle weights. The court denied the injunction, holding that the Act did not displace the Florida statute. It reasoned that Congress deliberately omitted sizes and weights from the specific regulatory powers granted to the Interstate Commerce Commission in section 204, instead authorizing only an investigation and report on the need for future federal rules under section 225, which showed no present intent to occupy the field.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved a wrongful death claim by the widow of a worker who drowned while employed on a dredge used to maintain repair slips at a ship repair facility on the St. Johns River. The plaintiff sued under federal admiralty law for seamen, but the defendant sought dismissal arguing lack of jurisdiction. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the dredge's operations were purely local and had only an incidental relation to navigation and commerce, thus falling under the exclusive Florida Workmen’s Compensation Act rather than admiralty jurisdiction.

labor & employmentprocedurefederal power

In Calder v. Richardson, plaintiff Louis Calder, as assignee of Bidwell Properties, sued defendant Ernest S. Richardson for damages after Richardson failed to pay two promissory notes secured by a senior mortgage on 200 acres of land that he had assumed when purchasing the property. Bidwell had previously conveyed the land through an intermediate buyer and retained a junior mortgage plus a warranty of title on the remaining 700 acres, which became vulnerable when foreclosure occurred due to the default. The court overruled the defendant's demurrer, reasoning that even though Bidwell was not personally liable for the senior mortgage debt, Richardson's assumption agreement was made for Bidwell's direct benefit as a third-party beneficiary, allowing recovery of damages for breach of the covenant.

property

This case concerned a bank deposit originally made by Max Myers but later held in his wife Mrs. Myers' name via certificates of deposit; after the bank failed, its receiver obtained a judgment against Max Myers on promissory notes and sought to apply dividends from the deposit as a credit against that judgment. In a prior common-law action, the receiver had successfully argued that the deposit belonged to Mrs. Myers, thereby preventing Max Myers from using it as a set-off. The court held that the receiver was estopped from now claiming the deposit belonged to Mr. Myers, because the receiver had elected and prevailed on the inconsistent position that it was Mrs. Myers' property, with no change in underlying facts. The decree enjoined the receiver from applying the dividends to the judgment against Mr. Myers.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a lawsuit by the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, represented by Gene Buck, along with several music publishers, seeking to enjoin a defendant from future infringement of four separate copyrighted musical compositions and to recover damages for past infringements. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss on grounds of misjoinder of parties plaintiff and that the bill was multifarious. The core reasoning was that each copyright is a distinct property right owned separately by the individual corporate plaintiffs, who share no joint or common interest in the copyrights, and equity rules require that joined causes of action be joint while only the copyright proprietor can sue to enjoin future infringement.

propertyprocedure

This case involves a challenge by Southern Shipping Co. to a workers' compensation award granted to the widow of employee Sam Peyton under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. Peyton, a hatch tender, died from a ruptured aortic aneurysm after working approximately 21 hours continuously unloading cargo; the deputy commissioner found that the employment duties proximately caused or hastened the rupture. The court upheld the award, holding that substantial competent medical evidence supported the finding that the prolonged standing, walking, and exertion increased blood pressure and strain on the pre-existing aneurysm, even though the aneurysm was of syphilitic origin and could rupture without trauma. The court noted that employers accept employees subject to existing infirmities and that judicial review is limited to determining whether the administrative decision rests on substantial evidence, without reweighing the facts.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this bankruptcy case, debtor D.E. Porter sought to claim a homestead exemption under the Florida Constitution for real and personal property after being adjudged bankrupt. The referee initially denied the motion because prior creditors had obtained a lien through a fraudulent conveyance suit filed before Porter became head of a family, and the bankruptcy court had subrogated the trustee to that lien. The court held that Porter was entitled to the homestead exemption but only subject to the pre-existing lien, which the trustee could enforce for the benefit of creditors. The reasoning was that the lien attached before Porter acquired homestead rights, so he took the property subject to that burden; section 67f of the Bankruptcy Act permitted preserving the lien against the bankrupt with respect to exempt property, and Florida law supported enforcing pre-existing liens against later-acquired homestead claims.

propertyprocedurefamily law

In Anderson v. Rohrer, the plaintiff sued multiple defendants, including U.S. District Attorney Wilburn P. Hughes, claiming they conspired to maliciously prosecute him on false federal charges through a warrant, a preliminary hearing resulting in discharge for lack of probable cause, a grand jury indictment later quashed, and a dismissed appeal. Hughes demurred to the declaration, asserting immunity as a public officer for acts within his official duties. The court sustained the demurrer, ruling that a district attorney is not liable for initiating prosecutions within the general scope of his office even if done maliciously or without probable cause, based on the precedent in Spalding v. Vilas.

criminal lawproceduretorts & liability

In Pratt v. Weeks, plaintiffs sought rescission of a 1927 contract with defendant Weeks, restitution of advances and services, and an equitable lien on patent applications related to a supposed fuel-saving apparatus and new fuel for internal combustion engines. The court granted rescission and ordered restitution of $13,866.66 paid to Weeks plus $1,730.50 to an attorney, with interest, minus $1,180.10 in prior costs, secured by a lien on pending patent applications, but denied restitution for plaintiffs' services and expenses because no betterment to the inventions was shown. The decision was based on findings that the inventions did not perform as represented after plaintiffs' thorough testing and development efforts, making the contract executory and subject to cancellation without proven improvements from plaintiffs' work.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved a dispute over printing equipment sold by Intertype Corporation to Frank Pulver under a conditional sale contract that reserved title in the seller until full payment, with Pulver also executing promissory notes secured by a mortgage on the same property. After Pulver defaulted on some notes, Intertype first sued in Florida state court to foreclose the mortgage, but that action was ultimately dismissed; Intertype then brought this federal replevin action seeking to recover the equipment based on its retained title under the conditional sale. The court held that Intertype had no title supporting replevin because commencing the foreclosure suit constituted an election of an inconsistent remedy that recognized title in the buyer and thereby waived the seller's reserved title. The referee's findings were adopted except that the value of Pulver's interest was adjusted to $13,729 to reflect the mortgage balance, entitling him to possession or that amount. The ruling rested on principles of election of remedies under Florida law, without regard to the foreclosure suit's outcome.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved two plaintiffs seeking damages for personal injuries from a collision between a motorbus and their automobile, with the defendant pleading contributory negligence on the ground that the plaintiffs and the negligent driver were engaged in a joint enterprise. The plaintiffs replied that they were immune from imputed negligence, one as an infant and the other as a married woman lacking contractual capacity. The court overruled the defendant's demurrer, reasoning that a joint enterprise requires an antecedent contract creating mutual agency or partnership, which infants and married women under Florida law cannot validly form.

torts & liabilityfamily law