BAILMENT-LIABILITY OF PARKING LOT OWNER FOR THEFT OF AUTOMOBILE

Defendant mill maintained a free parking lot for its employees. The lot was enclosed, having one gate which was under constant surveillance by defendant\u27s private policeman and kept closed except for short periods during shift changes. During a shift change, plaintiff, an employee of defendant, parked his automobile in the lot, removing and retaining the keys. While plaintiff was working in the mill, the watchman on duty at the gate admitted certain persons to the lot and allowed them to remove plaintiff\u27s car. Held, two judges dissenting, this was a bailment for mutual benefit. Goodyear Clearwarter Mills v. Wheeler, (Ga. App. 1948) 49 S.E. (2d) 184

WILLS-VALIDITY OF ATTESTATION ON SEPARATE SHEET OF PAPER NOT PHYSICALLY ATTACHED TO WILL

Testatrix drew an instrument consisting of a single sheet of paper, intending it as her will. In the presence of a notary public, three witnesses observed the instrument with testatrix\u27 signature thereon and her acknowledgment of it as her will, but did not sign it. The document was then placed in an envelope. A separate instrument of attestation which referred to the will was prepared by the notary and signed by the testatrix and the attesting witnesses. This instrument and the envelope containing the will were both placed in another folder which was then deposited with the proper officials. Probate was contested on the basis that the Alabama statute, requiring at least two witnesses not only to attest the execution of the instrument but also to subscribe their names thereto, was not satisfied. Held, the attestation was a part of the will itself and sufficient under the statute. Johnston v. King, (Ala. 1948) 35 S. (2d) 202

BAILMENTS-DELIVERY OF POSSESSION-LIABILITY OF SHOPKEEPER FOR LOSS OF ARTICLE LEFT IN RECEPTION ROOM

Without the knowledge of defendants, plaintiff hung her coat on a hook provided for wraps in the unattended reception room of defendants\u27 beauty shop. Upon leaving, plaintiff returned to the reception room but was unable to find her coat. Judgment for its value was recovered in the lower court upon the theory that defendants were bailees of the coat and had been negligent in caring for it. Held, reversed. No bailment existed because there was no change of possession of the coat sufficient to constitute a delivery. Theobald v. Satterthwaite, (Wash.1948) 190P. (2d) 714

The V3, V4 and V6 bands of formaldehyde: A spectral catalog from 900 cm(-1) to 1580 cm(-1)

The results of a complete high resolution study of the three vibration-rotation bands v sub 3, v sub 4, and V sub 6 using both TDLs and FT-IR spectroscopy are presented. The reults are given in terms of a table of over 8000 predicted transition frequencies and strengths. A plot of the predicted and calculated spectra is shown. Over 3000 transitions were assigned and used in the simultaneous analysis of the three bands. The simultaneous fit permitted a rigorous study of Coriolis and other type iterations among bands yielding improved molecular constants. Line intensities of 28 transitions measured by a TDL and 20 transitions from FTS data were used, along with the eigenvectors from the frequency fitting, in a least squares analysis to evaluate the band strengths

CORPORATIONS-APPRAISAL STATUTES-TIME WITHIN WHICH DEMAND FOR APPRAISAL MUST BE MADE

A resolution to merge the corporation in which plaintiff held shares with defendant corporation was adopted by the shareholders over plaintiff\u27s objection. Eight days later, plaintiff made written demand on defendant corporation for payment of the fair value of his shares. The statute required that such demand be made upon the surviving corporation within twenty days after the merger . . . was effected, and provided that a merger became effective upon issuance of a certificate of merger by the Department of State. The articles of merger were not promptly filed and the certificate of merger did not issue until 42 days after the plaintiff\u27s demand was received. The court below dismissed plaintiff\u27s petition for appointment of appraisers to fix the value of his shares, construing the phrase, within twenty days after the merger . . . was effected, as fixing both the beginning and the end of the period in which demand must be made. On appeal, held, reversed. Since the statute fixed the ending date only, plaintiff was entitled to demand payment of the fair value of his shares at any time after the shareholders approved the plan of merger and before the expiration of twenty days after the merger was effected. Duddy v. Conshohocken Printing Co., (Pa. 1948) 60 A. (2d) 394

TAXATION-FEDERAL INCOME TAX-TAXABILITY TO NONRESIDENT ALIEN OF LUMP SUM PAYMENTS FOR COPYRIGHT

Taxpayer, a nonresident alien author not engaged in trade or business within the United States, delivered certain literary works to American publishers under agreement whereby the latter were to copyright and publish these stories and reassign to the taxpayer after publication all rights except the American serial rights. Lump sum payments for each story were received during the years 1938 and 1941. No tax was paid on these amounts and a deficiency was assessed on the ground that they constituted royalties received for the use of United States copyrights and were taxable as ordinary income. The circuit court of appeals sustained the taxpayer\u27s contention that the payments were proceeds from the sale of personal property and therefore exempt under Section 211 (a) (1) (A) of the Internal Revenue Code. On certiorari to the Supreme Court, held, reversed. Justices Frankfurter, Murphy and Jackson dissented. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Wodehouse, 335 U.S. 807, 69 S.Ct. 1J20 (1949)

2014 Fed Challenge Script: Current State of the Economy

Good afternoon everyone and thank you for having us here today. Though the recession began in 2007 and officially ended in 2009, recovery has been painfully slow. GDP growth has been insufficient to close the output gap, there continues to be slack in the labor market and inflation has stabilized below the Federal Reserve percent target. We are not meeting our dual mandate of full employment and stable prices even 6 years after the end of the recession. Despite some signs of strengthening in the economy during the past year, we do not believe that economy is on a self-sustaining path of recovery. Furthermore, the monetary policy actions taken by the Fed thus far to pull us out of the Great Recession have been insufficient. We propose a substantial strengthening of the our forward guidance; specifically, a commitment not to raise the federal funds rate until nominal GDP has returned to a path that we consider consistent with the dual mandate. [excerpt