The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (in case citations, 1st Cir.) is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:
More165 F.2d 142 (1947), INDUSTRIAL TRUST CO., v., COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. Indeed, in the McCormick case, the power was not unrestricted, for there the income was to be accumulated by the trustees, subject only to a power in the decedent to direct that income be paid to charities.
, 1937, 88 F.2d 441; Upon service of the petition for review, the Commission is to certify and file with the appellate court `a transcript of the record upon which the order complained of was entered.' The statute contemplates a case in which the Commission has taken evidence and made findings.
164 F.2d 404 (1947), THEOPOLD, v., UNITED STATES., The result of these amendments is to make certain what was doubtful before, that is, to make certain that the three children should share equally in the accumulated net income of the trust. It does not appear that this power was ever exercised.
Petitioner's standing in this court is by no means aided by the fact that, in the course of the informal administrative screening of the registration statement, members of the Commission's staff consulted with him and examined his memoranda setting forth objections to the statement.
164 F.2d 537 (1947), JOHN S. DOANE CO., v., MARTIN., Petitioner on the other hand assigns as errors the court's findings that the veteran was under a duty to mitigate his damages;
That is to say, The general rules of the maritime law apply whether the proceeding be instituted in an admiralty or common-law court. 607, 610, 81 U.S. 607, 610, 20 L. Ed. 756.
v., UNITED STATES. The plaintiff asks us, in the event of our affirmance of dismissal *853 in the other three cases, to order dismissal also of this action to avoid what it terms its anomalous position in having one indivisible cause of action for an amount beyond the court's jurisdictional limit.
Plaintiff in its appeal alleged that the district court erred in ruling that the agreements in the last group were not enforceable bilateral contracts and in denying recovery thereon, and likewise in permitting recovery on the counterclaim. that one consideration may support several promises.
, The constitutional prohibition upon the imposition of duties or imposts on imports is inapplicable because that prohibition is laid upon the states, and Puerto Rico, as we frequently have occasion to say, is not a state but an organized territory not incorporated into the United States.
161 F.2d 515 (1947), ARMSTRONG CO., v., WALLING. Appellant also maintains a train service department whose employees are furnished with sandwiches, tonics, and other related items, which they sell on commission on the trains leaving the North Station for points inside and outside Massachusetts.
CAMARA, v., NICOLLS, Dist. Director of Immigration Naturalization. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890. In other words, in all cases of dual nationality, Mr. Flournoy wanted the subsection changed so as to forfeit American citizenship whether the service in the foreign army was voluntary or involuntary.
The Commissioner explained his action by the statement that in his opinion the amount distributed to the deceased partner's estate constitutes a partial payment for the interest of the decedent in the partnership and not a distribution of earnings subsequent to the date of his death. 26 U.S. C.A.
160 F.2d 610 (1947), HURD, v., COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 70, 86 L. Ed. 511;, The estate maintains, however, that the powers reserved were limited powers, i.e., the decedent, as trustee, was limited in any payment to his wife by the phrase if in their opinion the circumstances so require.
In 1935 the respondent employed Robles on a temporary part-time basis to help load and unload trucks calling at its San Juan store for which it gave him empty boxes and crates and paid him a few dollars per week. 918, 84 L. Ed. 1226, held not to prevent enforcement of an order such as this.
161 F.2d 589 (1947), NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, v., BIRD MACH. 85, 89 L. Ed. 601;, 1941, 311 U.S. 514, 61 S. Ct. And the Board may permissibly find that the employees might reasonably consider the letter as confirmation of the foremen's previous remarks which were definitely coercive.
on your return from the service As previously stated there was some evidence that Dacey, when he *422 saw Griffith in June, 1945, insisted not only upon reemployment in the former position he had held under the expired contract, but also upon being reinstated as a director and vice president.
Co. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 8 Cir. It forecast prospective earnings and dividends of NEES common to see whether one share of NEES common would furnish the equitable equivalent of the $1 of dividends on RIPS preferred not compensated for by the cash payment of $16.50.
, By resolution of May 18, 1944, the Commission stated that its ultimate policy was to enable the Transportation Authority to *752 take charge exclusively of the bus service in the metropolitan area between San Juan and Rio Piedras as rapidly as its expanding facilities would permit.
162 F.2d 280 (1947), COCA-COLA CO., v., SNOW CREST BEVERAGES, Inc., No. 4196. 191, 83 L. Ed. 195. Giant Size. On their third visit they again asked for coke, as well as other soft drinks, were given a case of Polar Cola with their order, and again paid for their purchase and drove away with it.
As previously stated, even if this power had been lodged directly in the grantor acting as trustee, ยง 167(c) provides that this circumstance alone shall not render the trust income taxable to the grantor, where, as in the case at bar, no such application was in fact made during the taxable years.
