TAXATION - INCOME TAX - A FIXED INVESTMENT TRUST AS A TAXABLE ASSOCIATION

Bonds of a prescribed kind were deposited in an investment trust with defendant, who issued certificates representing equal undivided interests in the trust corpus. Additional interests were created by the deposit of eligible bonds and sufficient cash to make up the current value of an interest, and all such bonds and cash were commingled. The depositor was not confined in making up the new units to the same kinds of bonds that were used in the original units, but could vary them in his discretion. The depositor could order the elimination of unsound bonds by sale, and the proceeds of such a sale together with interest and the proceeds from called or matured bonds were to become currently distributable funds and could not be reinvested. The commissioner assessed an income tax deficiency against defendant on the ground that it was taxable as an association. Held, the power in the depositor to vary the character of the investment by exercising his discretion in the selection of bonds for additional units constituted business activity and made the trust taxable as an association under the Revenue Act of 1934, § 801(a) (2). Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. North American Bond Trust, (C. C. A. 2d, 1941) 122 F. (2d) 545 (Chase, J., dissenting)

FUTURE INTERESTS - ACCELERATION OF CONTINGENT REMAINDERS AFTER WIDOW\u27S ELECTION TO TAKE AGAINST WILL

Testator made specific bequests in the first five items of his will, one bequest being directed to his wife. In the sixth item he gave his wife a life interest in all the property remaining after satisfying items one to five. Item seven provided for a remainder in some specific realty to a niece, and item eight provided that upon the death of the wife and after satisfying item seven, the residue of the estate was to go to five named beneficiaries and to all of his nephews and nieces then living. The widow renounced her share under the will and took her statutory share of one third of all the property. Held, the remainders were accelerated into possessory estates; then living referred to the termination of the previous life estate and not to the death of the life tenant; the termination of the life estate closed the class; and the disappointed legatees under items one to four would be compensated first out of the proceeds of the specific bequest renounced by the widow, and the balance be secured by a lien imposed on the accelerated remainders. Tomb v. Bardo, 153 Kan. 766, 144 P. (2d) 320 (1941)

LABOR LAW - NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD - CONFLICTING JURISDICTIONAL AREAS OF NATIONAL AND STATE LABOR BOARDS

The!! National Labor Relations Board proceeded against defendant corporation, which was admittedly engaged in interstate commerce and subject to the National Labor Relations Act, to enforce its order enjoining the use of unfair labor practices and compelling the reinstatement of employees discharged because of union activities. Defendant attacked the board\u27s jurisdiction on the ground that prior to the board\u27s proceeding, the Wisconsin Labor Relations Board, acting under the Wisconsin labor law, had assumed jurisdiction of the case and had disposed of it, thus precluding subsequent action by the National Labor Relations Board. Held, the N. L. R. B. is not prevented from assuming jurisdiction, since there is no record of any formal proceedings or of an ultimate disposition of the case by the Wisconsin board. National Lahar Relations Board v. Algoma Net Co., (C. C. A. 7th, 1941) 124 F. (2d) 730

LABOR LAW - ANTIRACKETEERING ACT NOT APPLICABLE TO LABOR UNIONS

Defendant Teamsters Union and twenty-six individual defendants were convicted for the violation of the Antiracketeering Act. Defendants had by threats of violence forced the owners of all trucks entering the city of New York to pay members of defendant union the regular union wage for driving and unloading a truck regardless of whether the tendered services were accepted. Held, the act was not intended to apply to such labor activity, and defendant did not violate the act if the money was received with the intention of rendering services therefor, even if the services were not accepted. Such payments constituted bona fide wages, the payment of which was exempted from the operation of the act. United States v. Local 807 of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 315 U.S. 521, 62 S. Ct. 642 (1942)

FEDERAL COURTS - FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS - COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION

Plaintiff brought suit on some promissory notes in the federal district court in Michigan. The complaint was filed before the expiration of the six-year Michigan statute of limitations, but although the plaintiff used due diligence he was unable to get personal service on defendant until the statutory period had elapsed. Defendant pleaded the statute of limitations. Both the Michigan and the federal procedures provide that a civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court. Held, that the filing of the complaint tolled the running of the statute and the plaintiff should therefore be allowed to maintain his action. Schram v. Koppin, (D. C. Mich. 1940) 35 F. Supp. 313

TORTS - LICENSEES - REVOCABILITY OF LICENSE GRANTED BY THEATRE TICKET

Plaintiff was forcibly ejected from defendant\u27s theatre by defendant\u27s employees and brought this action for damages for assault and battery. Defendant offered testimony attempting to justify the ejection on the ground that plaintiff was creating a disturbance. The trial judge instructed the jury that the question of plaintiff\u27s conduct was immaterial and that a theatre owner could eject a patron at any time with or without cause. Held, that the instruction was erroneous. Despite the revocable character of the license granted by a theatre ticket a theatre owner does not have the right to eject a patron without cause. Cummings v. St. Louis Amusement Co., (Mo. App. 1941) 147 S. W. (2d) 190

LABOR LAW - NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD - CONFLICTING JURISDICTIONAL AREAS OF NATIONAL AND STATE LABOR BOARDS

The!! National Labor Relations Board proceeded against defendant corporation, which was admittedly engaged in interstate commerce and subject to the National Labor Relations Act, to enforce its order enjoining the use of unfair labor practices and compelling the reinstatement of employees discharged because of union activities. Defendant attacked the board\u27s jurisdiction on the ground that prior to the board\u27s proceeding, the Wisconsin Labor Relations Board, acting under the Wisconsin labor law, had assumed jurisdiction of the case and had disposed of it, thus precluding subsequent action by the National Labor Relations Board. Held, the N. L. R. B. is not prevented from assuming jurisdiction, since there is no record of any formal proceedings or of an ultimate disposition of the case by the Wisconsin board. National Lahar Relations Board v. Algoma Net Co., (C. C. A. 7th, 1941) 124 F. (2d) 730

LABOR LAW - ANTIRACKETEERING ACT NOT APPLICABLE TO LABOR UNIONS

Defendant Teamsters Union and twenty-six individual defendants were convicted for the violation of the Antiracketeering Act. Defendants had by threats of violence forced the owners of all trucks entering the city of New York to pay members of defendant union the regular union wage for driving and unloading a truck regardless of whether the tendered services were accepted. Held, the act was not intended to apply to such labor activity, and defendant did not violate the act if the money was received with the intention of rendering services therefor, even if the services were not accepted. Such payments constituted bona fide wages, the payment of which was exempted from the operation of the act. United States v. Local 807 of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 315 U.S. 521, 62 S. Ct. 642 (1942)

TAXATION - INCOME TAX - A FIXED INVESTMENT TRUST AS A TAXABLE ASSOCIATION

Bonds of a prescribed kind were deposited in an investment trust with defendant, who issued certificates representing equal undivided interests in the trust corpus. Additional interests were created by the deposit of eligible bonds and sufficient cash to make up the current value of an interest, and all such bonds and cash were commingled. The depositor was not confined in making up the new units to the same kinds of bonds that were used in the original units, but could vary them in his discretion. The depositor could order the elimination of unsound bonds by sale, and the proceeds of such a sale together with interest and the proceeds from called or matured bonds were to become currently distributable funds and could not be reinvested. The commissioner assessed an income tax deficiency against defendant on the ground that it was taxable as an association. Held, the power in the depositor to vary the character of the investment by exercising his discretion in the selection of bonds for additional units constituted business activity and made the trust taxable as an association under the Revenue Act of 1934, § 801(a) (2). Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. North American Bond Trust, (C. C. A. 2d, 1941) 122 F. (2d) 545 (Chase, J., dissenting)