IMPORTANT U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
(From Amer. Bar Assn. Journal)
Lewis vs Roberts. Judgments in tort for personal injuries are provable against the estate of a bankrupt. Sup. Ct. Rep. 45-357.
Oliver vs U. S. In distributing a bankrupt’s estate, a tax claim is to be paid before preferred wages, unless the particular tax has been subordinated to claims for wages by some relevant law. Sup. Ct. Rep. 45-386.
U. S. vs Kaufman. In bankruptcy proceedings against a partnership, the U. S. is not entitled to any priority of payment out of partnership assets for a tax due from an individual partner, until the partnership debts are satisfied. Sup. Ct. Rep. 45.
Wolff Packing Co. vs Court of Industrial Relations. The provisions of the Kansas Industrial Court Act respecting the fixing of hours of labor constitute merely a feature of the system of compulsory arbitration, and share the invalidity of the whole. Sup. Ct. Rep. 45-441.
Ind. Assn. of San Francisco vs U. S. A combination of manufacturers to frustrate a strike by refusing to allow contractors to buy certain domestic materials, thus incidentally diminishing interstate commerce in other materials, is not within the condemnation of the Sherman Act. Sup. Ct. Rep. 45.
Cooke vs U. S. The delivery of a contemptuous letter to a judge in chambers by counsel for a party to a pending action is not contempt committed in open court, and may not be punished summarily by the judge. Where the intention with which acts of contempt have been committed must have an important bearing on the degree of guilt, the Court can not exclude evidence in mitigation. Sup. Ct. Rep. 45-390.
May vs Henderson. The Federal Court in bankruptcy may by summary proceedings require to be turned over to the trustees: 1. Property of the bankrupt or his assignees in which any person has acquired an interest adverse to the creditors after the filing of the petition with notice of it; 2. Property which the assignees for the benefit of creditors have received within four months of the bankruptcy and dissipated without a colorable claim of right. Sup. Ct. Rep. 45-456.
U. S. vs Dunn. Where a beneficiary seeks to avoid a fraudulent transfer of the trust property by the trustee, it is not necessary to prove damages, but it is sufficient to establish—that the fiduciary has disposed of the property for his own benefit. The beneficiary of a trust may either follow the trust res fraudulently diverted until it reaches an innocent purchaser for value, or he may claim the proceeds of the sale of the res in the hands of him who fraudulently acquired it. Suit to establish an equitable claim to specific property does not bar a recovery of the proceeds of that property if it develops in the course of the trial that the defendant has conveyed it away in violation of his equitable obligation to the plaintiff. Sup. Ct. Rep. 45-451.
