Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Court: us supreme court Year: 1934 Page 4 of about 41 results (0.074 seconds)

Apr 30 1934 (FN)

Lindheimer Vs. Illinois Bell Telephone Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Apr-30-1934

..... to these determinations of costs and allocations, while appellee contends that the costs as found were less than the true costs and that the full amounts paid under the license contracts should have been allowed. page 292 u. s. 158 the evidence with respect to the value of appellee's property employed in its intrastate business at chicago is voluminous. the ..... 1928, inclusive, when the court found that the payments under the license contracts charged on appellee's books exceeded the cost as thus determined and allocated, only the cost was held to be chargeable to operating expenses, but in the years 1929 to ..... this reduction, and appellants object to the amounts allowed. the district court made specific findings as to the character of the services rendered by the american company under its license contracts with appellee and the amounts of the cost of these services which should be allocated to the operating expenses of the latter's intrastate business. in the years 1923 to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 12 1934 (FN)

Arrow-hart and Hegeman Electric Co. Vs. Ftc

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-12-1934

..... to their successors. instead, it continued the suppression of competition by placing the stock of the two operating companies respectively in control of the two new holding companies, tied by contract to effect the merger, and, by the method of distributing the stock of the new holding companies equally to its own stockholders, it lodged common ownership and control of both .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 12 1934 (FN)

United States Vs. Jefferson Electric Mfg. Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-12-1934

..... claims or causes of action and requiring that suits be brought by the real, rather than the nominal, party in interest have been uniformly sustained when challenged as infringing the contract and due process clauses of the constitution. the present contention is particularly faulty in that it overlooks the fact that the statutes providing for refunds and for suits on claims .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 05 1934 (FN)

Pigeon River Co. Vs. Charles W. Cox, Ltd.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-05-1934

..... waters of lake michigan and to all canals connecting boundary waters, and now existing or which may hereafter be constructed on either side of the line. either of the high contracting parties may adopt rules and regulations governing the use of such canals within its own territory, and may charge tolls for the use thereof, but all such rules and regulations ..... 16 ] see note 9 [ footnote 17 ] 36 stat. 2448, u.s. treaties, vol. 3, p. 2607. [ footnote 18 ] article i of the treaty of 1909 is as follows: "the high contracting parties agree that the navigation of all navigable boundary waters shall forever continue free and open for the purposes of commerce to the inhabitants and to the ships, vessels, and ..... power; that "the treaty, in itself, is not equivalent to an imperial act and, without the sanction of parliament, the crown cannot alter the existing law by entering into a contract with a foreign power." hence, it was said, the rights and privileges given by a treaty are, under canadian law, enforceable by the courts only where the treaty "has been ..... and all tolls charged shall apply alike to the subjects or citizens of the high contracting parties and the ships, vessels, and boats of both of the high contracting parties, and they shall be placed on terms of equality in the use thereof." .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 17 1934 (FN)

Schumacher Vs. Beeler

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Dec-17-1934

schumacher v. beeler - 293 u.s. 367 (1934) u.s. supreme court schumacher v. beeler, 293 u.s. 367 (1934) schumacher v. beeler no. 215 argued november 16, 1934 decided december 17, 1934 293 u.s. 367 certiorari to the circuit court of appeals for the sixth circuit syllabus 1. section 23(b) of the bankruptcy act, as amended, operates as a grant of jurisdiction to the district court of suits brought by trustees in bankruptcy against adverse claimants, provided the defendants consent to be sued in that court, although the suits be such that the bankrupts could not have brought them in that court if the proceedings in bankruptcy had not been instituted. p. 293 u. s. 371 . 2. of suits falling within the exceptions specified in 23(b) -- namely, suits for the recovery of property under 60(b), 67(e), and 70(e) -- the district court has jurisdiction without the defendants' consent. p. 293 u. s. 376 . 71 f.2d 831 affirmed. certiorari to review a decree reversing a decree of the district court which dismissed the cause for want of jurisdiction. this was a plenary suit by a trustee in bankruptcy against a sheriff to enjoin the sale of property of the bankrupt under an execution from a state court. page 293 u. s. 368 mr. chief justice hughes delivered the opinion of the court. in granting the writ of certiorari, we limited our review to the question of the jurisdiction of the district court under 23(b) of the bankruptcy act. that provision, and its immediate context, 23(a), are set forth in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 05 1934 (FN)

Warner Vs. Goltra

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Nov-05-1934

warner v. goltra - 293 u.s. 155 (1934) u.s. supreme court warner v. goltra, 293 u.s. 155 (1934) warner v. goltra no. 4 submitted october 8, 1934 decided november 5, 1934 293 u.s. 155 certiorari to the supreme court of missouri syllabus 1. in 33 of the merchant marine act of 1920, giving to "any seaman" injured in the course of his employment a cause of action for damages similar to that given by the statutes of the united states to railway employees, the term "any seaman" includes the master of the vessel. p. 293 u. s. 156 . 2. this provision should be construed liberally; "seaman," in this particular context, should be interpreted in its broad sense, not in the narrower sense distinguishing the crew from the master, found in other statutes, and this accords with the purpose of the act as revealed by its history and by other legislation in pari materia. pp. 293 u. s. 157 -159. 3. section 713, c. 18, of title 46 of the u.s.code, purporting to define master and seaman, must be confined to the sections in chapter 18 which were derived from the same earlier legislation as 713; it is inapplicable to 33 of the merchant marine act of 1920, placed in the same chapter 18 by the compilers of the code. p. 293 u. s. 160 . 4. the compilers of the u.s.code were not authorized by congress to amend existing law. p. 293 u. s. 161 . 334 mo. 396, 67 s.w. 2d 47, reversed. certiorari, 292 u.s. 617, to review the affirmance of a judgment dismissing the complaint in an action for damages for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 30 1934 (FN)

Spring City Foundry Co. Vs. Commissioner

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Apr-30-1934

spring city foundry co. v. commissioner - 292 u.s. 182 (1934) u.s. supreme court spring city foundry co. v. commissioner, 292 u.s. 182 (1934) spring city foundry co. v. commissioner nos. 727 and 728 argued april 3, 1934 decided april 30, 1934 292 u.s. 182 certiorari to the circuit court of appeals for the seventh circuit syllabus 1. where accounts and income tax returns are on the accrual basis, a debt owing the taxpayer for goods sold in the tax year is returnable as gross income of that year even though ascertained in that year to be partly worthless. art. 35 of regs. 45, under revenue act of 1918, construed. p. 292 u. s. 184 . 2. section 234(a)(5) of the revenue act of 1918 authorized the deduction of a debt ascertained to be worthless and charged off within the taxable year; it did not authorize the deduction of the whole or a part of a debt which was not then ascertained to be worthless, but was recoverable in part, the amount that was recoverable being still uncertain. p. 292 u. s. 185 . 3. section 234(a)(4) of the revenue act of 1918, providing for deduction of "losses sustained during the taxable year," and subdivision (5) of the same section providing for deduction of debts ascertained to be worthless within the taxable year, are mutually exclusive, and a debt excluded from deduction under (5) cannot be deducted as a loss under (4). p. 292 u. s. 189 . 4. if a statute is ambiguous, administrative construction followed since its enactment is of great weight. p. 292 u. .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 28 1934 (FN)

international Milling Co. Vs. Columbia Transportation Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : May-28-1934

international milling co. v. columbia transportation co. - 292 u.s. 511 (1934) u.s. supreme court international milling co. v. columbia transportation co., 292 u.s. 511 (1934) international milling co. v. columbia transportation co. no. 561 argued february 16, 1934 decided may 28, 1934 292 u.s. 511 certiorari to the supreme court of minnesota syllabus 1. in determining whether a suit brought in a state court by one foreign corporation against another on a foreign cause of action is an unreasonable burden on the interstate commerce conducted by the defendant, and is therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the court, the fact that the plaintiff is a resident of the state, in the sense that its business is there, is of high significance. p. 292 u. s. 519 . 2. the business of a delaware corporation, with its principal office in ohio, was carriage of merchandise by steamer in interstate and page 292 u. s. 512 foreign commerce, between ports on the great lakes and tributary waters including ports of minnesota. its vessels navigated waters of lake superior over which minnesota and wisconsin have concurrent jurisdiction, and it maintained at duluth, minnesota, an agent who did whatever was necessary to facilitate loading and unloading of cargoes. when one of its vessels, bearing cargo partly destined for duluth arrived in adjacent waters within the concurrent jurisdiction, it was attached in an action brought by another delaware corporation, whose business was in minnesota, on a cause .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 1934 (FN)

New Jersey Vs. Delaware

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-05-1934

..... take the legal estate under the same equity, and it is sufficient for plaintiffs if they have an equitable estate." so lord baltimore must make performance in accordance with the contract. true, the decree for performance will be "without prejudice to any prerogative, right, or interest in the crown." this again is by virtue of the deference owing to the crown .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 21 1934 (FN)

Principality of Monaco Vs. Mississippi

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : May-21-1934

..... it be to authorize suits against states for the debts they owe? how could recoveries be enforced? it is evident it could not be done without waging war against the contracting state, and to ascribe to the federal courts by mere implication, and in destruction of a preexisting right of the state governments, a power which would involve such a consequence ..... privilege of paying their own debts in their own way, free from every constraint but that which flows from the obligations of good faith. page 292 u. s. 325 the contracts between a nation and individuals are only binding on the conscience of the sovereign, and have no pretensions to a compulsive force. they confer no right of action independent of ..... , 52 miss. 732); that the revised code of 1871 ( 1573) provided that the state might be sued and that code had no statute of limitations in respect to bonds or contracts under seal; that a limitation of seven years as to actions upon such obligations was imposed by the act of april 19, 1873 (laws miss. 1873, c. 26), and that ..... . 3, article i, "forbids the state of mississippi without the consent of congress, to enter into any compact or agreement with the principality of monaco, and no compact, agreement or contract has been entered into by the state with the principality;" (4) that the proposed litigation is an attempt by the principality "to evade the prohibitions of the eleventh amendment of .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //