Page images
PDF
EPUB

INDEX

ACCRETION. See Boundaries.

ACQUIESCENCE. See Boundaries.

ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES. See Limitations, 2.
ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION. See Statutes, 9-10.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS.

1. Tariff Act.

Change of Rates.

rates of duty under Tariff Act of 1930.

Administrative change of

U. S. v. Bush & Co., 371.

2. Bituminous Coal Act. Procedure. Administrative procedure
prescribed by Bituminous Coal Act of 1937 as satisfying constitu-
tional requirements. Sunshine Coal Co. v. Adkins, 381.

3. State Administrative Tribunal. Testing validity of formula
adopted by state administrative tribunal for proration of produc-
tion of oil field; scope of review by federal court. Railroad Com-
mission v. Rowan & Nichols Oil Co., 573.

ADMIRALTY.

1. Maritime Lien. Charter Party. Where charterer has direc-
tion and control of vessel and charter does not prohibit, supplier
of fuel on charterer's order entitled to lien, though charter re-
quires charterer to "provide and pay for" fuel. Dampskibssel-
skabet v. Signal Oil Co., 268.

2. Id. That supplier has contract with charterer to supply
requirements of all vessels owned or operated by latter does not
defeat lien. Id.

3. Id. Charterer having direction and control of vessel as
"person to whom management is intrusted" with authority under
Act of 1910 to procure supplies on credit of vessel. Id.

AGENTS. See Constitutional Law, V, (A), 19; V, (B), 6; United
States, 2.

AGRICULTURE. See Antitrust Acts, 3; Constitutional Law, V,
(B), 3, 5.

ALIMONY. See Taxation, I, 2–8.

ALLOWANCE. See Army and Navy.

ANTI-PICKETING LAWS. See Constitutional Law, V, (A), 10-18.

ANTITRUST ACTS. See Constitutional Law, II, 1; V, (B), 5,

1. Common Law Restraints. Types of contracts and combina-
tions which were illegal at common law. Apex Hosiery Co. v.
Leader, 469.

-2. Id. Combinations of employees restraining competition
among selves in sale of services to employer not illegal restraint
at common law. Id.

3. State Legislation. Discrimination between agriculture and
industry in state antitrust law. Tigner v. Texas, 141.

4. Federal Legislation. Congress may remove penalties of Sher-
man Act as to a particular industry. Sunshine Coal Co. v. Adkins,
381.

5. Id. Prohibitions of Sherman Act may be modified by
authorization of price-fixing through public agency. Id.

6. Id. Sherman Act incorporated common law concept of illegal
restraints. Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 469.

7. Sherman Act. Construction and Application. Act to be in-
terpreted in light of legislative history and evils at which it was
aimed. Id.

8. Id. End sought by Act was prevention of restraints on free
competition which tend to restrict production, raise prices, or con-
trol market to detriment of consumers of goods and services. Id.

9. Id. Act not designed to police interstate transportation. Id.
10. Id. Act does not condemn all combinations and conspira-
cies which interrupt interstate transportation. Id.

11. Id. Nature of restraint, not amount of commerce, criterion
of violation. Id.`

12. Id. Restraints not brought within Act merely because ac-
complished by violence. Id.

13. Id. Meaning of "restraint of trade" and "commerce among
the several States." Id.

14. Id. Labor Organizations not wholly excluded from opera-
tion of Act. Id.

15. Id. Restraints on sale of employee's services to employer
not per se violations of Sherman Act. Id.

16. Id. That strike agreement to compel employer's submission
to demands may put employer at disadvantage in competing with
others not subject to such demands, does not render agreement
violative of Sherman Act. Id.

17. Sherman Act. Offenses. Conspiracy. Price Fixing.
Agreements to fix prices in interstate commerce unlawful per se;

ANTITRUST ACTS-Continued.

purpose to eliminate competitive abuses or evils no defense. U. S.
v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 150.

18. Id. Conviction of oil companies for conspiracy to raise and
maintain gasoline prices-by buying "distress" gasoline on spot
markets and eliminating it as a market factor-sustained. Id.

19. Id. That other factors contributed to price stabilization
and that competition was not eliminated, immaterial. Id.

20. Id. Elimination of competitive evils no justification for
agreement fixing prices. Id.

21. Id. Price-fixing agreement illegal though conspirators do
not control market. Id.

22. Id. No error in refusal to charge that jury to convict must
find prices were raised and maintained at high, arbitrary and non-
competitive levels. Id.

23. Id. Price-fixing agreement illegal though prices paid by
combination were not uniform and inflexible. Id.

24. Id. Exemption of price-fixing agreement from provisions
of Sherman Act under National Industrial Recovery Act; mode
of exemption; effect of expiration of Recovery Act. Id.

25. Sherman Act. Liability for Damages. Remedy. Labor
organization and strikers not liable under Sherman Act for dam-
ages suffered by employer whose interstate shipments were stopped
during sit-down strike. Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 469.

26. Id. No liability under Sherman Act out of local strike in
production industry, though strike methods illegal under local law,
where resulting restrictions on shipments not shown to have re-
strained, or to have been intended to restrain, commercial com-
petition in substantial way. Id.

27. Id. Wrongs actionable under local law and resulting from
conspiracies which, in purpose and effect, fall short of market
control of commodity, without remedy under Sherman Act. Id.

28. Id. Liability of strikers for damages not question of power
of Congress but of extent to which power has been exerted. Id.
29. Procedure. Evidence. Admission and exclusion of evidence
in Sherman Act case. U. S. v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 150.
APPORTIONMENT. See Constitutional Law, II, 5.

ARGUMENT TO JURY. See New Trial, 5.

ARMY AND NAVY.

Re-enlistment Allowance suspended for fiscal year ending June
30, 1939. U. S. v. Dickerson, 554.

ARRANGEMENT WITH CREDITORS. See Bankruptcy, 7-8.

ASSESSMENT. See Constitutional Law, II, 4; V, (A), 21; V,
(B), 2.

ASSIGNMENT. See United States, 1.

ATTORNEY GENERAL. See Jurisdiction, I, 2.

AVULSION. See Boundaries.

BANKRUPTCY.

Amendment of paragraph (2) of General Order No. 53, see
p. 661.

1. Nature of Jurisdiction. Bankruptcy court is court of equity,
guided by equitable principles consistent with Act. Securities
Comm'n v. U. S. Realty Co., 434.

2. Proceedings under § 75. Order of bankruptcy court per-
mitting foreclosure sale contrary to provisions of § 75 was erro-
neous but not void nor subject to collateral attack in state court.
Union Land Bank v. Byerly, 1.

3. Id. State court's confirmation of sale after dismissal of § 75
proceeding, as affected by subsequent reinstatement under Act of
1935. Id.

4. Id. Reference of cause to conciliation commissioner for
administration of property denied where property no longer
debtor's. Id.

5. Id. Bankruptcy court may not permit foreclosure of mort-
gage liens where procedure prescribed by § 75 (s) not complied
with. Borchard v. California Bank, 311.

6. Railroad Reorganization. Jurisdiction of federal court to
impose lien on property of lessor where latter in reorganization in
other State. Warren v. Palmer, 132.

7. Proceedings Under Chandler Act. Scope and Application of
Chapters X and XI. Proceeding by corporation for "arrange-
ment" under Chapter XI; plan of arrangement as "fair and
equitable"; confirmation "for the best interest of creditors"; ade-
quacy of relief obtainable under Chapter XI; intervention by
Securities & Exchange Commission; appeal by Commission from
refusal to dismiss Chapter XI proceeding. Securities Comm'n v.
U. S. Realty Co., 434.

8. Id. In this case, Chapter XI proceeding should have been
dismissed, leaving debtor to proceed under Chapter X. Id.

« PreviousContinue »