About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

48 Wash. L. Rep. 377 (1920)
Issue 24

handle is hein.journals/dwlr48 and id is 381 raw text is: VOL. XLVIII TH-E WASHENGTON LAW REPORTER 377 Che Wasbington Eaw Reporter A WEEKLY NEWSPAPER OF LEGAL INFORMATION ESTABLISHED 1874. FRANK B. CROWN, MANAGER RICHARD A. FORD, EDITOR TELEPHONE MAIM 828 TELEPHONE MAIN 9620 VOL. 48 (WEEKLY) No. 24 Published by THE LAW REPORTER PRINTING COMPANY Office of Publication: 518-520 FIFTH STREET N. W. Telephone Main 828. Annual Subscription $3 Single Copies 10 Cents Last year's copiies 25 cents each, and 10 cents added for each year prior thereto. WASHINGTON, D. C. June 11, 1920. CONTENTS. E ditorial ----------_--------- - --------------- 377 COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Louis Hirsh, appellant, v. Julius Block, Trading and Carrying on Business Under the Name and Style of W hites, appellee ---------------------------- 378 John W. Davidge, appellant, v. Leo Simmons - 385 United States ex rel. Sarah E. McCathran, appellant, v. Michael M. Doyle, Judge of the Municipal Court of the District of Columbia, appellee ........ -------------------------------------------- - 387 Proximate Cause of Injury as Affected by Privity of C o n tra c t ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3 8 7 Internal Revenue; Income Taxes; Jncome. ............ 388 L eg a l N o tic es -------------------------------------------------------- ------------ 3 88 The Eighteenth Amendment Held Valid. - The Supreme Court of the United States, on Monday, June 7, 1920, announced its decision in a number of cases involving the validity of the Eighteenth Amendment of the Con- stitution, prohibiting the manufacture, 'sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors, and also the validity of the Act of Congress known as the Volstead Act providing for the enforcement of the amendment. The court sustained the validity both of the amendment and of the act, the judgment of the court being announced by Mr. Justice Van Devanter. The usual method of stating the judgment of the court in a formal opinion was departed from, and instead a series of eleven conclusions upon the questions involved were announced. Mr. Chief Justice White concurred in a separate opinion as did Mr. Justice McReynolds. The decision sets at rest the many questions raised as to the validity of the amendment as well as the enforcement act. It will be fully reported in an early issue of TaE LAW REPORTER. Enforceability of War Chest Subscription. At the time when the world war was still in progress, Mechanieville, N. Y., in common with numerous other cities, adopted the War Chest plan of raising subscriptions for various chari- table purposes, a corporation for that purpose was formed, and subscriptions were taken by use of printed cards. Considerable dissatisfaction seems to have developed as to the disposition of funds and necessity of payment of deferred subscrip- tions, and the case of Mechanieville War Chest, Incorporated, v. Butterfield, 181 New York Supplement, 428, is a result of an action on a partially unpaid subscription. Judge McKelvey, of the Saratoga County court, states that in a case such as the present it is impossible to pass upon any question as to the mismanagement of funds, though such might be done if proper proceedings were instituted calling for interposition of the power of the courts in regard to visitation of corporations and associations. The court holds that the signing; of the pledge card made defendant a member of the corporation, bound with implied knowledge of its certificate and by-laws, con- stituting an enforceable contract; that testi- mony. as to defendant's understanding of the conditions and meaning of this contract was inadmissible, as there was no real claim of fraud asserted, nor any ambiguous or doubtful terms to be construed. IN reporting the decision of the Court of Ap- peals of this District in the case of Simmons v. Davidge, in our issue of May 28, 1920, mention was omitted of the fact that Mr. Chief Justice McCoy, of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, who sat with the court in the place of Mr. Justice Robb, dissented from the conclu- sion of the majority of the court, and filed an opinion stating the grounds of his dissent. The decisidn will be reprinted in our columns, to- gether with the dissenting opinion filed by Mr. Chief Justice McCoy. The judgment of the Court of Appeals will be reviewed by the Su- preme Court of the United States, the application for such review having been granted. WITH the permission of the court we report in this issue the opinion of the Court of Appeals of this District in the cases of Block v. Hirsh and United States ex rel. McCathran, both involving the constitutionality of the Act of Congress of October 22, 1919, known as the District of Co- lumbia Rents Act. The court, in opinions by Mr. Justice Van Orsdel, holds the act in question to be wholly unconstitutional and void. Mr. Chief Justice Smyth dissented and filed opinions giving the reasons for his dissent. The judges of the Municipal Court of this District are following the decision of the Court of Appeals in disposing of landlord and tenant proceedings in that court.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most