Latest Important Cases Feb. 28, Mr. justice Wright of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia announced the decision of the court that in directing the six members of the Congressional Joint Con gressional Committee on Printing to show muse why a writ of mandamus should not issue compelling the committee to award a contract to the Valley Paper Company of Massachusetts he had not exceeded his authority. The functions of the Joint Committee are ministerial and not legislative, according to the finding of the court. All legislative duties being conferred by the Constitution upon Congress, the court held that none of them could be delegated by Congress to its mem bers. No power could be vested in a part of Congress by a law of Congress itself. That there was room to believe that the opening and inspection of bids for paper was an administrative duty, the court admitted, but it disclaimed any inference that any member by so doing held an administrative ofiice. Partnership. Agreement by Shareholders to Treat Business of Two Corporations as a Partnership—Court of Equity Without Power to Take Corporate Properly into its Control as Upon Dissolution of a Partnership. N. J. The parties in interest organized two car pr-ralions and engaged ‘r. the sale of sub scription books, under a joint agreement, whereby each of them possessed a half inter est in the stock and securities of the corpora tions and was to have an equal voice and equal control in the management of the busi ness of both, the corporations being intended to become merely "instrumentalities or agen cies for carrying out certain partnership pur poses." The combined business was treated as a partnership. Differences arose between the partners, one of whom asked for the appointment of a receiver of the New York corporation.
In Jackson v. Hooper, decided by the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals Feb. 28 (N. Y. Law Jour. Mar. 8), it was held, by Dill,
1., that a court of equity has no power to take the corporate property into its control, as upon the dissolution of a copartnership, but that the rights of the parties must be administered as shareholders in the corpora tion, not as partners. It was also held that an agreement between shareholders controlling the stock of the cor porntion, that certain directors shall act as nominal or dummy directors, subservient to
251
the will of the parties, is illegal and cannot be enforced in a court of equity; and that a
court of equity has no jurisdiction to regulate the management of the internal affairs of a corporation organized under foreign laws, through the medium of an injunction issued either against the members of the board of directors as individuals, who are parties to the action, or against the corporation directly. The Court followed the authority of a Massachusetts case decided more than seventy five years ago and not cited by counsel, but deemed on all fours with the case at bar, Russell v. McLellan, 14 Pick. 63.
Police Power. Act Licensing Dance Halls Unconstitutional— Unfair Discrimination. N. Y.
In People ex rel. Duryea v. Wilber. 90 N. E.
1140,
decided on
Feb.
22,
the
New
York Court of Appeals held that an amend ment to the Greater New York Charter requiring that all public dancing academies and schools where a charge is made for teach ing dancing shall procure a license authoriz ing the business to be conducted at the place named is unconstitutional. The object of the amendment does not appear to have been the promotion of health, safety, morals or the general welfare of the public and it is not a revenue measure. The enactment was held, therefore, not to be a lawful exercise of the police power, but an arbitrary and unjust discrimination against places where instruc tion is given in dancing. Vann, 1., dissented. Taxation.
See Interstate Commerce.
Trial by Jury. Not Guaranteed to Those Violating a Municipal Ordinance—Constitu tionality—lnloxicating Liquors. Ga. The Supreme Court of Georgia (Lumpkin,
J.) in Loeb v. Jennings, 67 S. E. 101, decided Feb. 16, denied trial by jury to one violating a municipal ordinance, and as the city charter conferred on the city of Atlanta the right to pass an ordinance providing penalties for the keeping of liquors for illegal sale, the plaintifl'was properly convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $500 and to perform thirty days’ work on the public works. The court said : "There is no constitutional immunity in any citizen of this state or any other state to come within its borders and violate its laws in re gard to prohibiting intoxicating liquors or to violate a municipal ordinance prohibiting the
keeping of liquors on hand for illegal sale."
