Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Sorted by: old Court: uk supreme court Year: 1916 Page 1 of about 38 results (0.048 seconds)

Jan 10 1916 (FN)

United States Vs. Hamburg-amerikanische Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-10-1916

..... , or assists directly or indirectly any opposition line." "(8) new lines may be admitted or the terms of the agreement altered only by unanimous vote, unless otherwise provided in the contract." "(9) to assist in the carrying out of the agreement, a secretary was appointed." "(10) regular meetings are to be held alternately at london and cologne for the purpose of ..... the corporate defendants to the bill, some of whom had become parties to the alleged illegal combination by subsidiary agreement or agreements made at a later date than the original contract. "1. the allan line steamship company, limited, hereafter called the 'allan line,' a british corporation, operating from portland, boston, and philadelphia to london, liverpool, and glasgow and return. " page 239 ..... 2, 1890 (26 stat. 209, c. 647). the relief asked, moreover, in the nature of things embraced certain subsidiary agreements made during the course of the execution of the main contract, in furtherance of its alleged prohibited result. the principal agreement was made in 1908, to last until february 28, 1911, but was to continue in force thereafter from year to ..... against the government, the course most consonant with justice is to reverse, with directions to dismiss the bill without prejudice to the government in the future to assail any actual contract or combination deemed to offend the anti-trust act. 216 f. 971 reversed. the facts, which involve the construction and application of the sherman anti-trust act of july 2 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 10 1916 (FN)

Cleveland, C., C. and St. L. Ry. Co. Vs. Dettlebach

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-10-1916

..... of shipment or carriage") so as to include "cars and other vehicles and all instrumentalities and facilities of shipment or carriage, irrespective of ownership or of any contract, express or implied, for the use thereof and all services in connection with the receipt, delivery, page 239 u. s. 594 elevation, and transfer ..... s. 672 ; atchison &c.; ry. v. robinson, 233 u. s. 173 , 233 u. s. 180 . the provision that we have quoted from the contract is to the effect that "every service to be performed thereunder" is subject to the conditions contained in it. one of these conditions is, in substance, that, where a ..... of the common law responsibility of a railway company as carrier and as warehouseman. but we have to deal with the effect of an express contract, made for the purpose of interstate transportation, and this must be determined in the light of the act of congress regulating the matter. the ..... like limitation of the liability of a warehouseman -- the latter not agreeing to abate any part of proper storage charges. to so extend the contract of release would give an advantage to the warehouseman, but none to the owner. to allow that consideration would be to permit the carrier to ..... decided january 10, 1916 239 u.s. 588 error to the court of appeals, eighth district, state of ohio syllabus the effect of an express contract, made for the purpose of interstate transportation, must be determined in the light of the act to regulate commerce. whether the responsibility of an interstate .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 1916 (FN)

New York, P. and N. R. Co. Vs. Peninsula Exchange

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-24-1916

..... to such property caused by it or by any common carrier . . . to which such property may be delivered or over whose line or lines such property may pass, and no contract, receipt, rule, or regulation shall exempt such common carrier . . . from the liability hereby imposed." we need not review at length the considerations which led to the adoption of this amendment ..... are covered in full, and though there is no reference to the effect upon state regulation, it is evident that congress intended to adopt a uniform rule and relieve such contracts from the diverse regulation to which they had been theretofore subject." id., p. 226 u. s. 506 . it is now insisted that congress failed to accomplish this paramount object; that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 21 1916 (FN)

Guerini Stone Co. Vs. CarlIn Construction Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-21-1916

..... this is inconsistent with any implication that the parties intended that delays attributable to the action of the owner should leave plaintiff remediless. we therefore hold that the general contract was not admissible in evidence against plaintiff, unless for the purpose of showing (if, indeed, it did show) what drawings and specifications were referred to in the ..... days later, pursuant to an order of the assistant secretary of the treasury, all work upon the building was stopped "pending the settlement of responsibility for deviations from contract requirements regarding foundations." the question of responsibility lay between defendant and the representatives of the government; plaintiff having had nothing to do with the foundations. leaving the question ..... the three above items to be at the option of the general contractor. . . ." thereafter the plaintiff corporation was formed under the laws of massachusetts, and guerini transferred the contract to it. defendant was notified of this, expressed satisfaction in writing under date february 20, 1911, and thereafter dealt with plaintiff as subcontractor. at a later time, defendant exercised ..... a reference to an extraneous writing for a particular purpose makes it a part of the agreement for that purpose only. in this case, held that the general contract between the government and the contractor was not admissible as against a subcontractor except for the specific purpose mentioned in the subcontract, to-wit, showing what drawings and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 21 1916 (FN)

illinois Surety Co. Vs. Peeler

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-21-1916

..... in favor of the carolina electrical company. the record shows that among those named as the persons instituting the action was the "electrical page 240 u. s. 226 engineering & contracting company, assignee of joseph b. cheshire, jr., receiver of the carolina electrical company." the complaint set forth that the carolina electrical company (a north carolina corporation) had furnished to ..... of final settlement mentioned in said acts [referring to the acts of 1894 and 1905, supra ] the date on which the department approves the basis of settlement under such contract recommended by the supervising architect, and orders payment accordingly." we conclude that the action was not brought prematurely. 2. with respect to the amendment of the complaint, it is ..... date, this recommendation was approved and actual damages charged accordingly by direction of the secretary of the treasury. this, in our judgment, was the "final settlement" of the contract within the meaning of the act. we understand that the administrative construction of the act has been to the same effect. the regulation of the treasury department, as it appears ..... 32 stat. 326. on august 21, 1912, the supervising architect having received the certificate of the chief of the technical division of the office that all work embraced in the contract had been satisfactorily completed, made his statement of the amount finally due, recommending that only the actual damage (as stated) be charged against the contractor, and that the proper .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 21 1916 (FN)

Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. Vs. Guardian Trust Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-21-1916

..... a party to the agreement because of its other interests that were concerned. we may remark in this connection that we are equally unable to find in the plan a contract in favor of the trust company as an unsecured creditor. the plan sets out a page 240 u. s. 176 general scheme that it was hoped would be worked out .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 21 1916 (FN)

O'Keefe Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-21-1916

..... , which is that the commission's order in effect deprives the new orleans, texas, & mexico of its property without due process of law by denying to it the right to contract and compete for traffic originating on the line of the louisiana & pacific, is transparently unsound. the trunk line has no constitutional right to build up its business by paying bonuses .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 21 1916 (FN)

Fidelity and Deposit Co. Vs. Pennsylvania

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-21-1916

..... , etc." it does not undertake to endow any corporation with power, but only to permit those complying with specified conditions to exercise their lawful powers, derived from other sources by contracting with the government page 240 u. s. 324 under official approval. "power to guarantee," required by 1, is not the same thing as "authority under its charter" referred to ..... . s. 375 . moreover, whatever may be their status, if the pertinent statute discloses the intention of congress that such corporations, contracting under it with the federal government, shall not be exempt from state regulation and taxation, they must submit thereto. national bank v. kentucky, 9 wall. 353, 76 u. s. 362 ..... a tax for the privilege of performing its functions. farmers' bank v. minnesota, 232 u. s. 516 ; choctaw & gulf r. co. v. harrison, 235 u. s. 292 . but mere contracts between private corporations and the united states do not necessarily render the former essential governmental agencies, and confer freedom from state control. baltimore ship building co. v. baltimore, 195 u ..... exercise of the constitutional powers of the united states by demanding, in opposition to the will of congress, that a federal instrumentality pay a tax for performing its functions. mere contracts, however, between it and the united states do not render a private corporation an essential governmental agency and confer freedom from state control. the act of august 13, 1894, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 20 1916 (FN)

Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Ry. Co. Vs. Bond

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-20-1916

..... and lessees of both parties, but assigning or subletting shall not be without the written consent of the company. under the other contract, turner was required to cooper all cars which the roundhouse foreman directed him to prepare to fit the cars to hold grain in transit, the foreman ..... or other employee, showing the number of tons of coal delivered to any engine; (11th) payment of the work to be made monthly, and (12th) the contract and all the terms and conditions, rights and obligations thereof, to inure to the heirs, administrators, executors, legal representatives, page 240 u. s. 453 assigns, ..... may be in or about the cars, engines, and tracks of the company, "and any injury to said contractor while performing any services under this contract which might be or have been delegated to his agent or employees." and the contractor expressly assumes all liability for injury to or death of third ..... judgment was entered upon the verdict and sustained by the supreme court of the state. the case went to the jury upon the effect of certain contracts between deceased and the company, whether he was the company's servant or a contractor with it, and whether, if he was the servant of ..... submitting to subordination and subject momentarily to superintendence, but of one capable of independent action to be judged by its results, and the person so contracting controls the manner of the work done by himself and those employed by him, he is a contractor with, and not an employ of, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 20 1916 (FN)

Cuyahoga River Power Co. Vs. City of Akron

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-20-1916

..... 's property rights without compensation, and has taken steps that will destroy such rights, and that, in so doing, it purports to be acting under an ordinance which violates the contract clause of, and the fourteenth amendment to, the federal constitution, held that such municipal action is to be regarded as action of the state, and as the only way to .....

Tag this Judgment!


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