BANKS AND BANKING-SET -- OFF -- DEPOSITS IN FIDUCIARY CAPACITY

Plaintiff, receiver for an insolvent national bank, sued to recover money deposited in defendant bank. The defendant sought to set off a deposit as trustee in the insolvent bank. Held, the set-off would be improper. The claims are not mutual. A claim in a fiduciary\u27 capacity cannot be set off against an individual debt. Thomas v. Potter Title & Trust Co., (D. C. W. D. Pa. 1932) 2 Fed. Supp. 12

BANKS AND BANKING -TRUST FUNDS - DEPOSITS FOR A SPECIAL PURPOSE

Plaintiff had an arrangement with defendant bank whereby receipts of certain of plaintiff\u27s branch stores were to be deposited daily with defendant, and the latter was to transmit each day by draft to a bank in Pittsburgh for plaintiff\u27s credit all sums in excess of a dormant balance of $2,000. Drafts covering two days\u27 deposits were in process of transmission to the Pittsburgh bank when defendant bank was taken over by the Comptroller of the Currency. The deposits represented by these drafts were made at a time when defendant\u27s officers and directors knew the bank to be insolvent, though negotiations for the procurement of additional funds were in progress at that time. The futility of those negotiations was not known until after the drafts had been mailed. Held, that neither an implied or constructive trust arose, but the deposits by plaintiff created a debtor-creditor relationship between.it and defendant. Great A.& P. Tea Co. v. Citizens\u27 Nat. Bank, (D. C. W. D. Pa. 1932) 2 Fed. Supp. 29

TAXATION - CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION THAT A TRANSFER EXECUTED WITHIN A LIMITED PERIOD BEFORE DEATH IS MADE IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH

Motion for a refund by the plaintiff on the ground that certain transfers made within two years of the death of the decedent should not have been subjected to the federal estate tax as they were not in fact made in contemplation of death. The defendant filed a statutory demurrer on the ground that section 302 of the Revenue Act as amended in 1926 (26 U. S. C. A. sec. 1049C) renders such property taxable irrespective of what impelled the transfer. The section reads, Where within two years prior to his death and without consideration the decedent has made a transfer, . . . and the value is in excess of $5,000, then to the extent of such excess such transfer shall be deemed and held to have been made in contemplation of death within the meaning of the title. Held, the statute was a violation of the Fifth Amendment to the federal Constitution since it denies equal protection of the laws, and amounts to a taking of private property without due process of law. Donnan v. Heiner (W. D. Pa. 1931) 48 F.(2d) 1058; Hall v. White (D. C. Mass. 1931) 48 F.(2d) 1060

Obstacles and Solutions to Internet Jurisdiction: A Comparative Analysis of the EU and US Laws

In an era of information technology, businesses through the use of the boundless Internet can enter into international electronic contracts from anywhere in the world. The potential for cross-border disputes in electronic contracts is obviously much greater than in a paper-based environment, where a high degree of commercial contracts are domestic in nature. Can the traditional rules on jurisdiction, which are geographically orientated and generally rely on the place of performance, apply to the modern electronic contract disputes? This paper will analyse the EU and US approaches for determining jurisdiction in e-contracting cases and discuss the possibility of proposing specific jurisdiction rules for online contracts