NOTES OF RECENT CASES
327
NOTES OF THE MOST IMPORTANT RECENT CASES COMPILED BY THE EDITORS OF THE NATIONAL REPORTER SYSTEM AND ANNOTATED BY SPECIALISTS IN THE SEVERAL SUBJECTS (Copies of the pamphlet Reporter! containing lull reports o< any of these decisions m«y be secured from the Wett Pnbli thine Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, at 15 cents each. In ordering, the title of the desired case should be giYtn ti well as tke citation of volume and pate of the Reporter in which it is printed.)
BANKRUPTCY. (Concealment of Property.) 428. It appeared that in the early summer of 1905, the Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy Railway U. S. Cir. Ct. of App. — In Johnson v. United States, 158 Fed. Rep. 69, the Circuit Court of Appeals Company with its connecting lines east of the holds that an indictment will not lie under Rev. Mississippi River had filed a joint rate in accor St. § 5440 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3676], for a dance with the Act of Congress showing the pro portionate part thereof from points on the Missis conspiracy to effect the concealment by a bank rupt of property from his trustee, in violation of sippi River to New York to be 23 cents per 100 Bankr. Act 1898, | 29b, c. 541, 30 Stat. 554 [U. S. pounds. While this rate was in effect, the Bur lington Company contracted with the Armour Comp. St. 1901, p. 3433], where the trustee him self is charged as one of the conspirators, and the Packing Company to carry its products to New averments of the indictment show that there was, York until December 31, 1905 at a certain rate, in fact, no concealment of property from him, the proportionate part of which east of the Mis sissippi River was to be 23 cents per 100 pounds and no purpose that there should be such con in accordance with that published. In August cealment. . In arriving at this conclusion, the court finds of that year the schedule of rates was amended that the conspiracy charged was that the trustee so as to increase the charge from Mississippi River points to New York to 35 cents per 100 and a third person were to unite with the bank rupt in knowingly and fraudulently concealing pounds, but the Burlington road still continued from his trustee in bankruptcy a certain part of 'to carry the Armour products at the 23 cent rate in accordance with their contract. Proceedings his stock and a certain amount of money belong ing to the bankrupt's estate. It appeared even were instituted against the packing company to in the charge of the conspiracy that the trustee recover penalties, alleging that the arrangement in bankruptcy was a party to it. and the part of. with the railroad company amounted to giving a the indictment describing the offense that the rebate of 12 cents per 100 pounds, in violation of defendants conspired to commit, described in the Elkins Act. Defendant was found guilty, detail the articles that were to be concealed and the conviction affirmed by the Circuit Court of to which the conspiracy related. The indictment, Appeals, and an appeal then taken to the Supreme therefore, showed that the trustee himself knew Court of the United States which held that the of the concealing or withholding of the described contract between the packing company and the articles from the schedules and from his possession. railroad company was no defense, and that it In other words, although the indictment charged made no difference that there may have been no a conspiracy to conceal and a concealing from the fraud practiced in making it, as the statute pro trustee, facts were stated which showed that there hibited the obtaining of rebates or discriminations was no concealment in fact from him. Conse by any " device or means." quently, the indictment was fatally defective in charging the -trustee, one of the alleged con It is probably settled by this interesting case that spirators, with participation in, and knowledge special arrangements in respect to common carriage, of the transaction, which could only be an offense valid when made, become unavailing when the law against the law when it was concealed frofn changes. It is certainly a desirable result that those him. who have made long time contracts shall not secure CARRIERS. (Rebates.) U. S. Sup. Ct. — A thereby preferential treatment. It may be that the question of considerable importance to the rail result cannot be reached without the acceptance of roads and shippers of the country was decided by a general principle that all contracts with public ser the United States Supreme Court in Armour Pack vice companies ar.e subject inevitably to subsequent ing Company v. United States, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. changes in the peculiar law.
