This case involved a dispute over priority to approximately $1,347 in funds from a newspaper publishing company's operations, which had been impounded after default on a conditional sales contract. The United States claimed federal tax liens for unpaid taxes and contributions exceeding $900, Acme Color Print Company asserted a claim based on a judgment recovered against the company, and the California Employment Stabilization Commission sought payment for unemployment insurance collections. The court ruled that the funds should be distributed first to Acme, second to the United States, and third to the California commission. Under Internal Revenue Code sections 3670-3672, federal tax liens arise upon assessment but are invalid against judgment creditors until properly recorded; Acme perfected its lien as a judgment creditor before the required notices were filed, while the California commission never obtained a judgment and thus lacked equivalent priority.
In this bankruptcy proceeding, petitioner George J. Buzas sought to restrain enforcement of a $900 default judgment obtained against him in California state court for damaging respondent Peter Cassenos's crops, arguing that the claim had been discharged in his bankruptcy. The court held that it had jurisdiction to determine the dischargeability of the debt and that the judgment was not discharged. The core reasoning was that the state court complaint alleged forcible and unlawful entry onto the property and driving a truck over growing vines and tomatoes, while also requesting treble damages, which under California law constituted a claim for willful and malicious injury to property exempt from discharge under the Bankruptcy Act.
The case involved Harry Bridges, an alien, petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge his detention by U.S. Immigration Authorities for deportation to Australia based on alleged membership and affiliation with organizations advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government by force or violence. The court decided to deny the petition, upholding the deportation order issued by the Attorney General. The core reasoning was that deportation proceedings do not constitute criminal punishment and thus do not trigger double jeopardy protections under the Fifth Amendment, the hearing was fair with substantial evidence supporting the findings under the Alien Registration Act, and no due process violations occurred.
This case involved Leland Stanford Junior University claiming it was deprived of the chance to demand the cash value of its stock in National Supply Company of Delaware due to the company's consolidation with Spang Chalfant Co. The court decided in favor of the plaintiff, ordering judgment equal to the stock's value at the time of consolidation. The reasoning was that the directors and officers breached their trust by failing to fully disclose to stockholders the requirement under Delaware law to dissent from the plan and demand payment within a specific time, which misled the plaintiff and caused detriment.
In Mirkovich v. Milnor, a fishing vessel owner sued members of California's Fish and Game Commission to enjoin enforcement of Section 1110 of the Fish and Game Code, which requires a permit for any vessel operating in state waters that delivers fish caught in or beyond state waters to points outside California, on grounds that the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment's due process, equal protection, and privileges and immunities clauses and improperly burdened interstate commerce. The plaintiff had not applied for a permit and sought a preliminary injunction, alleging the law was unconstitutional on its face and would lead to seizure of his vessel. The court denied the injunction and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, reasoning that the statute represented a permissible exercise of the state's police power to conserve its fisheries by controlling vessels within its jurisdiction, imposed no undue burden on individuals, did not regulate activities outside the state, and included adequate procedural safeguards such as judicial forfeiture proceedings before any seizure became final.
The United States sued Markowitz, a 25% stockholder in a corporation that had sold its assets and ceased operations, to recover a $10,135.95 deficiency income tax assessed against the corporation under transferee liability provisions. The government alleged that Markowitz received corporate assets through book entries labeled as administrative salaries. Markowitz denied receiving any funds, claiming they were transferred to the majority shareholder to shield them from a creditor's judgment. The court found sufficient evidence of a distribution of assets to Markowitz and rejected his explanations as lacking credibility, while also upholding the extension of the statute of limitations through waivers in compromise offers. It entered judgment for the plaintiff for the tax amount plus interest and costs.
