Volume 293 — United States Reports

Held: upon substantially the same record, to be good also against others. A writ of certiorari issued from this court. 290 U.S. 624 . The judgments in the suits between Armstrong and De Forest and their respective assignees are not conclusive upon the respondent, a stranger to the record. This is so by force of the accepted limitations of the doctrine of res judicata.

Held: that a bottomry bond, as such, must be given for the necessities of the ship or for the cargo or for the voyage, but that it is sufficient, when given by the owner, that the money be lent upon the bottom of the ship, at the risk of the lender, for the voyage, and that in such case the owner is free to employ the money as he pleases; if, as this Court decided, in the case of a respondentia loan, it is no objection…

Held: that the trustees come within the general category of “ public officers ” by virtue of their appointment by the *223 Governor, with the advice and consent of the Council, and their tenure and duties fixed by law. 1 United States v. Hartwell, 6 Wall. 385 , 393; Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U. S. 514 , 520. See Opinion of the Justices, 261 Mass., pp. 542, 543, 550; 159 N. E. 55 .

Held: That the clause in the mortgage by which the mortgagor gave assent to decree for sale of the property as provided by §§ 720-732 “ or any amendments or additions thereto ” when properly construed did not amount to an agreement that the proceeding should be “ governed by any future amendments or additions to those sections which should become effective before the application for the consent decree,” but that “ the…

Held: that since the proceeding brought by the primary receivers was “ first filed in this court, jurisdiction of the res is in the district court.” Upon a rehearing had on additional affidavits, the court reaffirmed its denial of the motion to vacate the order appointing the ancillary receivers. From this judgment, the Insurance Commissioner appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California, 293 U.S. 245 (1934), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the "right of California to force its university students to take classes in military training" and reiterated that "[i]nstruction in military science is not instruction in the practice or tenets of a religion." It was also held that the University of California constituted a corporation created by the state to administer the University, its president, and its provost, and as held is a constitutional department or function of the state government and as such an order by the regents is in effect a statute or law of the state.

Held: in view of the conditions disclosed by the record, that there was no basis for concluding that competition anywhere would be injuriously affected by the cooperative plan adopted by the combination, and reversed the decree.

Held: losses incurred in the taxable year which are deductible under § 234 (a) (4) of the Revenue Acts of 1918 and 1921, although not to be realized until payment of the bonds at maturity. It insists instead that the commissions are expenses incurred and paid at the date of the *284 bond issue which cannot, on any theory, be deducted in later years.

George v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 293 U.S. 377 (1934), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the district court's ruling of infringement of a song's common law copyright, granting an injunction so that damages could be determined, was interlocutory. The appeal came too late, so the Court vacated the appeal.

Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935), also known as the Hot Oil case, was a case in which the US Supreme Court ruled that the Franklin Roosevelt administration's prohibition of interstate and foreign trade in petroleum goods produced in excess of state quotas, the "hot oil" orders adopted under the 1933 National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), was unconstitutional.

Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465 (1935), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court concerned with U.S. income tax law. The case is cited as part of the basis for two legal doctrines: the business purpose doctrine and the doctrine of substance over form. The business purpose doctrine is essentially that if a transaction has no substantial business purpose other than the avoidance or reduction of Federal tax, the tax law will not regard the transaction. The doctrine of substance over form is essentially that for Federal tax purposes, a taxpayer is bound by the economic substance of a transaction if the economic substance varies from its legal form.

Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474 (1935), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that additur is a violation of the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Additur is the practice of a trial judge adding damages additional to the original amount awarded by the jury.