Latest Cases

Ram Tarak Singha and anr. Vs. Salgram Singha and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1944Cal153

.....act.6. as to his second ground for refusing the claim for reduction the learned subordinate judge was influenced by what he considered to be the factors taken into consideration in the commutation proceedings. according to him three factors were taken into consideration in settling the rent under section 40, ben. ten. act, viz. (1) prevailing rate of rent in the locality (2) average prices of staple food-crops and (8) average yield of the lands. he thought that there was nothing to show when the prevailing rate of rent came into existence and consequently he observed that if this prevailing rate be taken as coming into existence during the years 1891 to 1900, then the average prices of staple food-crops of that period were almost the same as the average prices of the years 1930 to 1939. next, taking the average yield of the lands, he found that the present rent of rs.85 is a little less than l/6th of this average yield. he seems to have taken this to be a fair ratio.7. mr.mukherjee, appearing in support of the appeal before me, contends (1) that the court of appeal below went wrong in holding that the world economic depression was only a temporary cause; (2) that in exercise.....

Meherdi Munshi Vs. Inspector, Co-operative Societies, Golpara Circle a ...

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1944Cal245

.....liquidator did not think it necessary to make a summary order under clause (e) of the rule.5. even if it be assumed, however, that the provisions of rule 41 actually contemplate some sort of a semi-judicial enquiry by the liquidator before he makes a contribution order under section 42(2)(b), co-operative societies act, the question which requires consideration is whether failure to comply with the provisions of the rules would in itself be sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the civil court to entertain a suit the purpose of which was to question the validity of such an order. the learned advocate for the appellant relies on certain observations contained in s.k. ghose j.'s judgment inshillong (assamiya) cooperative bank, ltd. v. chiniram medhi ('37) 41 c. w. n. 670. in that case, however, the learned judge was dealing with an order which the registrar of co-operative credit societies had made with regard to a dispute under the provisions of a rule corresponding to rule 32(7) of the present rules under section 43 of the act. this rule purported to give finality to a decision of the registrar with reference to such a dispute. the learned judge, however, had no occasion to.....

Mandeville Vs. Canterbury

Court : US Supreme Court

.....appeal from the injunction order, the court of appeals for the seventh circuit affirmed, 130 f.2d 208, and we granted certiorari. 317 u.s. 616. section 265 of the judicial code, 28 u.s.c. § 379, provides that, except as authorized by any law relating to proceedings in bankruptcy "the writ of injunction shall not be granted by any court of the united states to stay proceedings in any court of a state." to this sweeping command there is a long recognized exception that, if two suits pending, one in a state and the other in a federal court, are in rem or quasi in rem, so that the court or its officer must have possession or control of the property which is the subject matter of the suits in order to proceed with the cause and to grant the relief sought, the court first acquiring jurisdiction or assuming control of such property page 318 u. s. 49 is entitled to maintain and exercise its jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other. in such cases, this court has uniformly held that a federal court may protect its jurisdiction thus acquired by restraining the parties from prosecuting a like suit in a state court notwithstanding the prohibition of § 265......

Overstreet Vs. North Shore Corp.

Court : US Supreme Court

.....dismissal. 128 f.2d 450. the important question raised as to the coverage of the act caused us to grant certiorari. 317 u.s. 606. the relevant facts alleged in the complaint as amended, which are to be taken as true for purposes of the motion to dismiss, may be summarized as follows: respondent owns and operates a toll road and a drawbridge which is part of the road. the toll road connects united states highway no. 17, an interstate arterial highway, with fort george island, which lies off the northern coast of florida, being separated from the mainland by the intercoastal waterway. the toll road crosses the waterway at sisters' creek by means of the drawbridge which must be raised frequently to permit the passage of boats engaged in interstate commerce. the toll road constitutes an integral part of the highway system of the united states, and provides the only means of land communication between fort george island and the florida mainland. it is used extensively by persons and vehicles traveling between the island and points outside florida in interstate commerce. mail to and from other states as well as goods produced outside florida and consigned to merchants on the.....

Ziffrin, Inc. Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

.....submit to this commission some method for divorcing applicant herein from ziffrin truck lines, inc., which might eliminate the conflict with section 210 of the act on which the denial of the application was grounded. pursuant to this suggestion, applicant has filed a petition seeking reopening and reconsideration of the proceeding, and, as a basis therefor, proposes a plan for elimination of the common control of applicant and ziffrin truck lines, inc. the petition is opposed by an association of motor common carriers. it is understood that the filing of this petition and action by us thereon does not terminate the court proceeding. pending our action on the petition, however, the entry of judgment by the court is being held in abeyance. in view of the pendency of the litigation, we believe that a statement of the reasons for our action with respect to this petition will be helpful." the commission then restated the evidence showing common control of the two corporations, and concluded that the plan proposed would not change the situation. page 318 u. s. 80 see 33 m.c.c. 155; 28 m.c.c. 683, 692, et seq. the evidence is ample to support the.....

Tileston Vs. Ullman

Court : US Supreme Court

.....advice of the supreme court of errors. that court, which assumed without deciding that the case was an appropriate one for a declaratory judgment, ruled that the statutes page 318 u. s. 46 "prohibit the action proposed to be done" by appellant, and "are constitutional." we are of the opinion that the proceedings in the state courts present no constitutional question which appellant has standing to assert. the sole constitutional attack upon the statutes under the fourteenth amendment is confined to their deprivation of life -- obviously not appellant's, but his patients.' there is no allegation or proof that appellant's life is in danger. his patients are not parties to this proceeding, and there is no basis on which we can say that he has standing to secure an adjudication of his patients' constitutional right to life, which they do not assert in their own behalf. cronin v. adams, 192 u. s. 108 , 192 u. s. 114 ; standard stock food co. v. wright, 225 u. s. 540 , 225 u. s. 550 ; bosley v. mclaughlin, 236 u. s. 385 , 236 u. s. 395 ; blair v. united states, 250 u. s. 273 ; the winnebago, .....

United States Vs. Brooks-callaway Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

.....it gave judgment in respondent's favor in the sum of $3,660. [ footnote 3 ] no findings were made as to whether any of the high water was in fact foreseeable. we granted certiorari because the case presents an important question in the interpretation of the standard form of government construction contract. we believe that the construction adopted below is contrary to the purpose and sense of the proviso, and may easily produce unreasonable results. the purpose of the proviso is to remove uncertainty and needless litigation by defining with some particularity the otherwise hazy area of unforeseeable events which might excuse nonperformance within the contract period. thus, contractors know they are not to be penalized for unexpected impediments to prompt performance, and, since their bids can be based on foreseeable and probable, rather than possible, hindrances, the government secures the benefit of lower bids and an enlarged selection of bidders. to avoid a narrow construction of the term "unforeseeable causes" limiting it perhaps to acts of god, the proviso sets forth some illustrations of unforeseeable interferences. these it describes as "including, but.....

Tiller Vs. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

.....so page 318 u. s. 68 long as the jury system is the law of the land and the jury is made the tribunal to decide disputed questions of fact, why it should not decide such questions as these as well as others." jones v. east tennessee, v. & g. r. co., 128 u. s. 443 , 128 u. s. 445 . or, as we have put it on another occasion, "[w]here the facts are in dispute and the evidence in relation to them is that from which fair-minded men may draw different inferences," the case should go to the jury. [ footnote 30 ] we think that the question of negligence on the part of the railroad and on the part of the employee should have been submitted to the jury. the decision below is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion. reversed. [ footnote 1 ] it was so dark that, when the engineer after the accident asked the fireman to pick up an object near the tracks, the fireman replied, "no, i am afraid to go down in the dark by myself; you come with me." [ footnote 2 ] see, e.g., toledo, st.l. & w. r. co. v. allen, 276 u. s. 165 , 276 u. s. 171 -172; .....

In Re William Vs. Bradley

Court : US Supreme Court

.....with a portion of the sentence which could lawfully have been imposed. as the judgment of the court was thus executed so as to be a full satisfaction of one of the alternative penalties of the law, the power of the court was at an end.{1} it is unimportant that the fine had not been covered into the treasury; it had been paid to the clerk, the officer of the united states authorized to receive it,{2} and petitioner's rights did not depend upon what that officer subsequently did with the money.{3} it follows that the subsequent amendment of the sentence could not avoid the satisfaction of the judgment, and the attempt to accomplish that end was a nullity. since one valid alternative provision of the original sentence has been satisfied, the petitioner is entitled to be freed of further restraint. page 318 u. s. 53 the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions that the petitioner be discharged from custody. reversed. ex parte lange, supra, 85 u. s. 176 . in re fletcher, 71 app.d.c. 108, 107 f.2d 666, 668. ex parte lange, supra, p. 85 u. s. 176 , and compare the dissenting opinion, pp. 85.....

Jerome Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

.....enlargement of the bank robbery act "to include larceny and burglary of the banks" protected by it. h.rep. no. 732, 75th cong., 1st sess., p. 1. the fact that the 1934 statute was limited to robbery was said to have produced "some incongruous results" -- a "striking instance" of which was the case of a man who stole a large sum from a bank but who was not guilty of robbery because he did not display force or violence, and did not put anyone in fear. id., pp. 1-2. the bill, as introduced (h.r. 5900, 75th cong., 1st sess., 81 cong.rec. 2731), added to § 2(a) two new clauses -- one defining larceny, and the other making it a federal offense to enter or attempt to enter any bank with intent to commit therein "any larceny or other depredation." for reasons not disclosed in the legislative history, page 318 u. s. 104 the house judiciary committee substituted "any felony or larceny" for "any larceny or other depredation." h.rep. no. 732, supra, p. 2. with that change and with an amendment to the larceny clause [ footnote 4 ] distinguishing between grand and petit larceny (81 cong.rec. 5376-5377), § 2(a) was enacted in its present form. we disagree with.....