Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Administrative Law - Statutory Interpretation - Conclusiveness Of Decision
Administrative Law - Statutory Interpretation - Conclusiveness Of Decision
Michigan Law Review
Pursuant to an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, the government had paid defendant $487,116.31 as the deficit incurred during federal control and due defendant under section 204 of the Transportation Act of 1920. The Commission later reopened the proceeding and annulled the order because it had erroneously interpreted the word "deficit" in the statute to mean a decrease in net railroad operating income in the federal control period as compared with the corresponding months of the test period from July 1, 1914, to June 30, 1917, instead of a "red ink deficit." The government then sued to recover the …
Constitutional Law - New Deal Legislation - Gold Hoarding Statute
Constitutional Law - New Deal Legislation - Gold Hoarding Statute
Michigan Law Review
Two cases involving acts of Congress passed in March 1933 to prevent the hoarding of gold' were denied a review by the United States Supreme Court on October 8. Both of these cases involved the same facts. Plaintiff had delivered certain gold bars to a bank for safe-keeping. Later the bank notified him that, pursuant to an executive order by the President of the United States, it would have to surrender the gold. Immediately the plaintiff demanded the return of the bullion, which demand was refused, and he filed bills for specific performance of the bailment contract against the bank …
Federal Practice -Appeal And Error - Review Of Denial Of Motion For New Trial
Federal Practice -Appeal And Error - Review Of Denial Of Motion For New Trial
Michigan Law Review
The federal appellate courts have, in a great many decisions, refused to review the denial of a motion for a new trial made in a lower federal court. The very recent case of Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co. once again presents the problem, and Justice Brandeis, writing the majority opinion, follows the prior holdings. In this very excellent opinion the learned Justice presents the reasons for the result generally reached, and enumerates some of the exceptions in a manner which should tend to clarify much of the doubt which has existed in this field of appellate jurisdiction.