Robert E. Lewis

The case involved an appeal by taxpayer Friend M. Aiken from a Board of Tax Appeals decision upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue's assessment of income and excess profits tax deficiencies for 1917 and 1918. The main issues were whether gain from the sale of stock in the Peerless Refining Company was taxable in 1916 or 1917, given an option agreement signed in 1916 with payment completed and the option exercised in 1917, and whether multiple waivers signed by the taxpayer validly extended the statutory periods for assessment and collection. The court held that the income was properly taxed in 1917 because the option created no fixed obligation or realized gain until exercised that year, and that the waivers were effective under the relevant revenue acts to permit timely assessment and collection within the extended periods.

taxesprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a beneficiary's suit on a life insurance policy issued in 1910, seeking recovery of the $5,000 face amount (or $10,000 under the double-indemnity clause for accidental death) after the insured died in 1924 following default on premiums and a policy loan that exhausted the cash value; the insurer had assumed the policy and the suit was removed to federal court. The district court awarded the beneficiary $3,550 (face amount minus the loan) but denied double indemnity, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed. The court held that premium-reduction coupons with a guaranteed cash value of $425.50 could be applied to extend the policy under Oklahoma statutes and precedent prohibiting insurers from denying automatic extension benefits to policies carrying loans, as such distinctions would discriminate against policyholders; the double-indemnity provision expressly did not apply to coverage continued by the automatic-extension clause after default.

business & regulatory

The case involved Delaware corporations operating oil businesses in Oklahoma that challenged a 1927 state statute imposing annual license fees, arguing it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating against foreign corporations. Under prior law, both domestic and foreign corporations paid fees on a similar basis tied to capital, but the 1927 amendment retained the authorized capital stock measure for domestic corporations while requiring foreign ones to pay based on all assets invested in their in-state business. The plaintiffs, who had paid the higher fees under protest and duress, sought recovery; the district court granted judgments on the pleadings, and the appeals court affirmed, holding the amended statute unenforceable against them due to the discriminatory treatment.

business & regulatorytaxescivil rights

The case concerned whether Osage Indian homestead allotments, inherited by non-competent heirs of half or more Indian blood from a similarly restricted allottee, remained exempt from state taxation under federal law. The district court had sustained a demurrer, upholding tax sales and assessments on the lands for 1919-1925. The Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that the 1906 Osage Allotment Act's provisions making homesteads inalienable and nontaxable were not repealed by the 1912 or 1921 Acts for such restricted heirs, as those later statutes addressed only removal of restrictions for allottees with less than half Indian blood and contained no express language eliminating the homestead tax exemption. The court reconciled the statutes by finding that the exemption continued for the heirs at issue, who had never received certificates of competency.

federal powerpropertytaxes

This case involved Ely & Walker Dry Goods Company suing the United States to recover over $465,000 in income and profits taxes for fiscal year 1918 that it claimed were erroneously assessed and collected. The company had filed an initial return with understated inventories, prompting the assessment of additional taxes plus a 50% penalty for alleged fraud; it then submitted an offer to pay the unpaid taxes along with a reduced amount equal to 5% of the penalty to settle all civil and criminal liabilities, which the Commissioner accepted with the Secretary of the Treasury's consent. The District Court entered judgment for the United States, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that the compromise agreement resolved the full single liability for both taxes and penalties, barring the recovery suit. A dissent contended that the compromise covered only the penalty claim and left the tax liability open to challenge.

taxes

This case concerned whether the state-owned Bank of North Dakota was required to pay a federal capital stock excise tax assessed under the Revenue Acts of 1918 and 1921. The bank argued it fell outside the tax because it was not a corporation or association and was a governmental instrumentality immune from federal taxation. The court held that the bank was subject to the tax, finding that it functioned as an artificial entity with capital stock, management akin to a board of directors, and authority to sue or be sued. The core reasoning was that the bank engaged in private business activities, such as lending to private banks and individuals and accepting general deposits, rather than purely governmental functions, and that a contrary ruling could allow states to evade federal excise taxes.

taxesfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

The case involved breach of contract claims by Texhoma Oil & Refining Company, as assignee of two fuel oil sales agreements between Henry H. Cross Company and Griswold Oil Corporation and Wichita Refining Company, along with an intervention by Griswold's bankruptcy trustee, seeking damages for Cross's refusal to accept further shipments after alleging violations regarding shipment volume, timing, quality, and delivery points. The district court awarded damages to the plaintiffs, and the appellate court affirmed the judgment. The court reasoned that the contracts were assignable as they did not involve personal services or relations of confidence, were divisible with time of the essence, the sellers substantially performed or were ready to perform, and damages were correctly calculated based on an open market for the oil.

business & regulatory

The case involved an appeal from a conviction in the Northern District of Oklahoma on one count of conspiracy and three substantive counts of unlawfully introducing intoxicating liquor from Kansas City, Missouri, into Tulsa, Oklahoma, in what had been Indian Territory. The court held that the indictment and evidence supported a valid conspiracy charge based on prior agreements among the defendants, but reversed the judgment because government agents, acting as informants, could not themselves perform the key overt acts of introducing the liquor without participation by the conspirators, rendering the substantive counts unsustainable in that venue. It further found reversible error in the prosecutor's closing argument that improperly commented on the defendant's failure to testify, which the trial court did not adequately admonish the jury to disregard. The court ordered dismissal of the three substantive counts and a new trial on the conspiracy count.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned the conviction of William Wishart for conspiring with others to import whisky and wine into the United States from Canada in violation of section 593(b) of the Tariff Act of 1922, by failing to report the liquor to customs officers, obtain required permits, or unlade it in the presence of officials. Wishart was tried separately and found guilty based on testimony from two alleged accomplices. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that substantial evidence supported the verdict, that the trial court's instructions to the jury were adequate and not erroneous, and that the indictment sufficiently charged the offense even without explicit use of terms like 'knowingly' in the conspiracy count. The court noted that convictions may rest on uncorroborated accomplice testimony in federal cases and that any pleading deficiencies did not prejudice the defendant.

criminal law

In Dinger v. United States, the defendant was charged in an information with selling intoxicating liquor in violation of the National Prohibition Act, based on an attached affidavit from a witness describing a purchase at a hotel in Minot, North Dakota. The jury convicted on the sale count but acquitted on a possession count. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the district court's jury instructions improperly directed a verdict by stating that the jury would be required to find the defendant guilty if it believed the government's uncontradicted evidence. The court found other challenges to the information's sufficiency and the evidence unavailing, and noted that the failure to instruct on the presumption of innocence was not preserved for review.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a dispute in bankruptcy proceedings over whether a chattel mortgage on a stock of merchandise and store fixtures, executed by the bankrupts in 1925 and recorded in Tulsa County, created a valid lien enforceable against the bankruptcy estate. The referee initially sustained the lien only as to the fixtures but the district court upheld it as to both assets; on appeal, the court addressed whether the lien could be challenged by the receiver. The appellate court reversed, holding the mortgage invalid against the estate under section 67a of the Bankruptcy Act because it would not have been valid as against the claims of the bankrupts' creditors. The core reasoning was that the trustee or receiver stands in the position of creditors and can assert defects rendering the lien unenforceable, and the absence of a trustee did not change this outcome as the entire estate assets were at stake.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved Richards, a Choctaw tribal member, who sued to recover federal income taxes paid on oil royalties from his allotted lands, which were exempt under acts of 1898 and 1902. The lower court ruled in his favor despite his failure to file refund claims with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue within the four-year statutory deadline under Rev. Stat. §§ 3226 and 3228. The appeals court reversed, holding that compliance with the timely filing requirement is a mandatory precondition for any refund suit, with no exception based on Richards' tribal membership, citizenship status, or any asserted guardian-ward relationship with the government. The court reasoned that prior acts had removed restrictions on his land, granting him full ownership rights, and that the tax demands were made in the ordinary course of revenue collection rather than under any trust arrangement.

taxesprocedurefederal power

This case involved a dispute over whether the plaintiff, who deposited checks drawn on an insolvent bank into his account, was entitled to a preferred claim against the bank's receiver for the collected proceeds, or whether he was merely a general creditor. The plaintiff argued that the defendant bank acted as his agent or trustee when collecting the checks, creating a trust fund that should receive priority in distribution. The court held that the relationship was one of debtor and creditor rather than principal and agent or trustee, based on federal commercial law precedents regarding check deposits and collections. Even assuming a trust relationship, the proceeds were not traceable into the receiver's assets because they had been applied to reduce the bank's own debts to other institutions, without augmenting the estate available to creditors. The district court's judgment for the defendants was affirmed.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved A.B. Morris and others convicted in the Northern District of Oklahoma on charges of possessing intoxicating liquor and related manufacturing equipment in Indian country, in violation of federal prohibition laws. The defendants challenged the indictment based on the grand jury's composition and evidence from an allegedly invalid search warrant, as well as seeking to disqualify the presiding judge on grounds of bias. The court held that Morris lacked standing to contest the search warrant since he had no possessory interest in the premises, that motions regarding the grand and petit juries were properly denied, and that the disqualification application was timely filed with sufficient basis, requiring the trial judge to step aside rather than assess good faith. The conviction was therefore reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings, including a new trial.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

This case involved a property owner from Kansas City who purchased land near Tulsa and sought to enjoin the city from enforcing its annexation ordinances and Zoning Ordinance No. 2576, which restricted the land to single- or two-family dwellings, claiming the annexations were invalid for procedural defects and that the zoning violated the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving him of property without due process and equal protection. The District Court denied the injunction, upheld the city's jurisdiction, and found the zoning valid, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that the annexation ordinances complied with Oklahoma law, placing the property in the city, that the zoning was a reasonable exercise of municipal police power on the record presented, and that evidence of unequal enforcement was too meager to support a finding of arbitrariness or discrimination.

propertybusiness & regulatorycivil rights

In Wilson v. United States, a county jail guard was charged by information with criminal contempt for assaulting a federal prisoner who was detained in the jail pursuant to a mittimus issued by a U.S. commissioner on a liquor possession charge. A jury convicted the guard, who was sentenced to both imprisonment and a fine. The circuit court reversed, holding that the district court lacked authority to punish the conduct as contempt because the prisoner was not held under any order or writ of that court, the commissioner was not a judge of a U.S. court, and the state statute made the jailer responsible for the prisoner's custody. The court also found prejudicial error in the admission of evidence about general jail management and noted that contempt punishment cannot include both fine and imprisonment.

criminal lawfederal powerprocedure

The case involved the United States seeking to recover unpaid 1918 federal income and excess profits taxes from certain stockholders of the Wild Cat Jim Oil Company, an Oklahoma corporation that had sold its sole asset, distributed proceeds to shareholders, and later had its charter canceled. The district court entered judgments against six served defendants for their pro rata shares of the tax deficiency plus interest. The court of appeals affirmed, reasoning that although the complaint failed to allege reasons for omitting other stockholders as required by Equity Rule 25, the answering defendants had waived the defect by proceeding, the statute of limitations barred claims against absent shareholders, and Equity Rules 39 and 43 permitted the court to adjudicate the matter without prejudice to non-parties.

taxesprocedure

Sandy McMillan was indicted and convicted in federal court for unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor (whisky) on premises located in what had been Indian Territory, in violation of federal law. He appealed, arguing that the search warrant used to seize the liquor was invalid and that the evidence was insufficient to connect him to the possession. The court held that McMillan could not challenge the search warrant because he had disclaimed any interest in or control over the premises and property. The court further found the evidence sufficient to link him to the offense, including his presence at the location, his false statements to officers, and his actions with the liquor during the search. The conviction and sentence were affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a joint-stock land bank organized under the federal Farm Loan Act that the Federal Farm Loan Board declared insolvent and placed into receivership in 1927. Bondholders and stockholders filed suits in federal court seeking appointment of a court receiver, discovery, accounting, and judicial oversight of the bank's assets and liquidation, arguing that the Act's procedures for board-controlled receivership violated the Fifth Amendment by denying judicial resolution of disputes. The district court dismissed the actions, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the Act expressly authorizes the Board to supervise insolvency proceedings through its receiver, collect assets, and disburse funds, with judicial involvement available as needed on specific issues but not through ousting the Board's receiver. The court analogized the process to national bank receiverships under the Comptroller of the Currency and found no constitutional infirmity in the statutory scheme.

business & regulatoryfederal powercivil rightsprocedure

The case involved challenges by Utah-Idaho Sugar Company and related parties to a Federal Trade Commission order that found them guilty of unfair methods of competition under the FTC Act and directed them to cease various practices aimed at maintaining a monopoly in beet sugar production and sales, such as territorial allocations, intimidating machinery suppliers, misusing financial influence, inducing contract breaches, and spreading misleading statements. The court set aside the FTC's restraining order in full. It reasoned that the conduct at issue concerned manufacturing and production of sugar beets and factories rather than interstate commerce, placing the matters outside the FTC's regulatory authority as defined by the Act, drawing on the distinction between manufacture and commerce established in Kidd v. Pearson.

business & regulatoryfederal power