Constitutional Law - Due Process - Dismissal of State Employees for Refusal to Answer Questions Concerning Membership in Communist Organizations

In companion cases state employees of Pennsylvania and New York were dismissed on grounds of incompetency and doubtful trust and reliability for refusing to answer questions by superiors concerning membership in communist organizations. Petitioner Beilan also invoked the Fifth Amendment at a hearing by a congressional investigating committee between the time he refused to answer his superior and the time he was dismissed. Appellant Lerner had invoked the Fifth Amendment when he refused to answer the questions asked by city officials. The highest courts of the states upheld the dismissals, making it clear that they were based on refusal to respond to proper inquiry and not on disloyalty inferred from invocation of the Fifth Amendment. On certiorari to the United States Supreme Court from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, held, affirmed, four justices dissenting. There is no denial of due process in the dismissal of a teacher for incompetency because of refusal to answer questions pertaining to fitness. Beilan v. Board of Education, 357 U.S. 399 (1958). On appeal to the United States Supreme Court from the Court of Appeals of New York, treated as certiorari, held, affirmed, four justices dissenting. Invocation of the Fifth Amendment does not preclude a state from dismissing for doubtful trust and reliability an employee who fails to respond to proper inquiry. There was no constitutional violation in the dismissal on the stated grounds. Lerner v. Casey, 357 U.S. 468 (1958)

Trusts - Construction - Distinction Between Stock Dividends and Stock Spit for Allocation Purposes

In 1918 a settlor created two identical trusts, the corpus of each consisting of 300 shares of General Electric no-par common stock. The income was to go to life beneficiaries, and at their deaths the principal was to revert to the settlor or his residuary estate. The trust instrument directed the trustee to transfer to the settlor or his executor, free of all trusts hereby created, any and all stock dividends .... In 1954 the corpus of each trust included 1200 shares of G.E. no-par stock with a stated value of $6.25 per share, there having been two stock splits unaccompanied by any transfer of accumulated earnings to the capital stock account. The corporation then converted each of its outstanding no-par shares into three$5 par value shares and increased its capital stock account from $180,287,046 to$432,688,910.40 by transferring $252,401,864.40 from earned surplus. In exchange for the 2400 no-par shares the trustee received 7200 par value shares. In an action to construe the trust instrument the lower court and the appellate division ordered that seven-twelfths, or 4200, of the new shares be allocated to the settlor\u27s residuary legatee and 1500 shares be allocated to the corpus of each trust. On appeal, held, affirmed, one judge dissenting. The new shares attributable to the accumulated earnings transferred to capital account constitute a stock dividend within the meaning of the trust instrument and are therefore not part of the trust corpora. Matter of Fosdick, 4 N.Y. (2d) 646, 152 N.E. (2d) 228 (1958)

Labor Law - Picketing - Peaceful Picketing for Recognition by Minority Union

Petitioner union was certified as exclusive bargaining representative of an employees\u27 unit in 1953. When contract negotiations faltered, the union called a strike and began picketing the employer\u27s retail store. The picketing continued for two years during which time the employer permanently replaced the strikers with non-union employees. In 1955 the union lost a new representation election by a vote of 28 to 1 and was decertified. When the picketing persisted, the employer petitioned the National Labor Relations Board, charging the union with an unfair labor practice. The Board, after finding that the union\u27s objective was exclusive recognition, held that the peaceful picketing violated section 8(b)(l)(A) of the amended National Labor Relations Act. On petition to review, held, order set aside, one judge dissenting. Peaceful picketing for recognition by members of a minority union does not constitute restraint or coercion of employees within the meaning of section 8(b)(l)(A). Drivers Local 639 v. NLRB (Curtis Brothers, Inc.), (D.C. Cir. 1958) 43 L.R.R.M. 2156, cert. granted 27 U.S. LAW WEEK 3291, 3293 (1959)

Taxation - Federal Income Tax - Commission Received by Life Insurance Agent on Policies Purchased by Him Held to be Taxable Income

Taxpayer was agent for eleven life insurance companies. From two of them he purchased policies on the lives of his business partner, three key employees, and his children. He paid the regular premiums and subsequently received standard first-year and renewal commissions. When taxpayer did not include these in his gross income, the Commissioner assessed deficiencies and was sustained by the district court, On appeal, held, affirmed. A commission received by a life insurance agent on a policy purchased by him is taxable income. Ostheimer v. United States, (3d Cir. 1959) 264 F. (2d) 789, cert. den. 80 S.Ct. 61 (1959)

Zea diploperennis: A Primitive Relative Offers New Traits to Improve Corn

Four years ago, a young Mexican botanist made what may someday be recognized as the botanical find of the century. Rafael Guzmán, a student at the University of Guadalajara, was searching for one of the wild relatives of corn in the mountains of southern Mexico. Guzmán was looking for Zea perennis, a perennial teosinte thought to be extinct in the wild since the early 1920\u27s. This primitive corn relative was considered more of a botanical curiosity than a boon to mankind. As a tetraploid, perennial teosinte produces sterile offspring when crossed with corn, a diploid species. Guzmán found perennial teosinte growing in a remote mountain site