ESTOPPEL.

III. EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL.

(A) Nature and Essentials in General.

62 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Rules of estoppel and fair dealing held applicable to government's war-time contract.-Dayton Airplane Co. v. U. S., 21 F. (2d) 673.

62 (2) (U.S. D. C. La.) Prohibition agent's mistake cannot estop government from enforc ing its legal rights.-The Jugoslavia, 21 F.(2d) 99.

Mistaken action of prohibition authorities held not to estop United States from proceeding for forfeiture of boat as used for concealment of liquors to evade tax thereon (National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, § 26 [27 USCA § 40]; 26 USCA 88 1181, 1182).—Id.

EVIDENCE.

I. JUDICIAL NOTICE.

26 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Court must judicially recognize that state of Russia survives, notwithstanding changes in government.-Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. State of Russia, 21 F. (2d) 396.

29 (U.S.D.C.La.) United States courts must take judicial notice of state statutes in considering questions affecting transfers, title, etc., in cases depending on local statutes (28 USCA § 725). In re Hagin, 21 F.(2d) 434.

48 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Courts judicially know that Director of Aircraft Production must act through authorized representatives.-Dayton Airplane Co. v. U. S., 21 F.(2d) 673.

II. PRESUMPTIONS.

65 (U.S.D.C.S.C.) Persons are conclusively presumed to know law.-Southern Ry. Co. v. Query, 21 F.(2d) 333.

73 (U.S.C.C.A.Iowa) Payment of dividends is presumed lawful without showing to contrary. -Majestic Co. v. Orpheum Circuit, 21 F. (2d) 720.

81 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Right of action in civillaw country cannot be assumed to exist merely because it exists under our law.-Standard Oil Co. of New York v. Tampico Nav. Co., 21 F. (2d) 795.

IV. RELEVANCY, MATERIALITY, AND COMPETENCY IN GENERAL. (A) Facts in Issue and Relevant to Issues.

13(2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) In action against storage company for failure to deliver goods in 1919, evidence of values in 1911, when stored, held relevant.-Barrett v. Fournial, 21 F. (2d)

298.

Where defendant storage company lost goods, so that evidence of values at time of default was unavailable, it could not complain of evidence of values when deposited.-Id.

Trial judge held not to have abused discretion in permitting evidence of values of goods in 1911 to prove values in 1919.-Id.

V. BEST AND SECONDARY EVIDENCE.

181 (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Secondary evidence of note is not admissible until note is shown to be competent.-Cohen v. New York Life Ins. Co., 21 F.(2d) 278.

182 (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Evidence of contents of lost note held inadmissible, where it was shown that the note was not signed and the handwriting was not identified.-Cohen v. New York Life Ins. Co., 21 F. (2d) 278.

X. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. (C) Private Writings and Publications. 354(13) (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Books of account, entries being made from vouchers kept by direction of mutual agent of the parties, held competent evidence.-St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. American Food Products Co., 21 F. (2d) 733.

355(1) (U.S.D.C.Ga.) Records and slips showing weight of cotton cargo received from ship at Manchester, England, held competent in suit against carrier for short delivery.Alexander Eccles & Co. v. Strachan Shipping Co., 21 F. (2d) 656.

(D) Production, Authentication, and Ef

fect.

376(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Modern business conditions require liberal construction of rules governing introduction of books of account.St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. American

Food Products Co., 21 F. (2d) 733.

382 (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Competency of books tion of trial judge.-St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. of account must be left largely to sound discreCo. v. American Food Products Co., 21 F.(2d) 733.

XI. PAROL OR EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE AF. FECTING WRITINGS.

(A) Contradicting, Varying, or Adding to Terms of Written Instrument. 407 (2) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Bill of lading recital that merchandise was received on ship was not warranty, but receipt, which as between parties could be contradicted.-Olivier Straw Goods Corporation v. Osaka Shosen Kaisha, 21 F. (2d) 618.

(B) Invalidating Written Instrument.

433(!) (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Parol evidence is admissible to show release of personal injury claim was induced by mutual mistake.-Lion Oil Refining Co. v. Albritton, 21 F. (2d) 280.

434(15) (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Parol evidence is admissible to show release of personal injury claim was induced by fraud.-Lion Oil Refining Co. v. Albritton, 21 F. (2d) 280.

XII. OPINION EVIDENCE. (A) Conclusions and Opinions of Witnesses in General.

474(19) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) In action against express company for failure to deliver household goods and personal effects, plaintiff owner may testify to values.-Barrett v. Fournial, 21 F. (2d) 298.

(D) Examination of Experts.

547 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Expert evidence of values of rugs, antiques, portieres, and objects of art held competent, notwithstanding witness gave estimates from oral descriptions of ar ticles.-Barrett v. Fournial, 21 F.(2d) 298.

EXCEPTIONS, BILL OF. II. SETTLEMENT, SIGNING, AND FILING.

38 (U.S.C.C.A.S.D.) Bill must be allowed during term, or within time extended.-Farmers' Union Grain Co. v. Hallet & Carey Co., 21 F.(2d) 42.

41(1) (U.S.C.C.A.S.D.) Bill of exceptions held not signed nor presented during time extension.-Farmers' Union Grain Co. v. Hallet & Carey Co., 21 F. (2d) 42.

EXPLOSIVES.

FISH.

9 (U.S.D.C.Or.) Initiated law, Oregon 1926,
prohibiting use of fishwheel or seine for taking
fish from Columbia river in state held valid
(Laws 1927, p. 17).—P. J. McGowan & Sons v.
Van Winkle, 21 F.(2d) 76.

FIXTURES.

(U.S.D.C.Pa.) Generally, all fixtures of
permanent character pass with the realty. In
re Shelar, 21 F. (2d) 136.

on

14 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Whether fixtures
leased premises are removable is question of in-
tention of landlord and tenant. In re Shelar,
21 F. (2d) 136.

al court until after end of litigation in state
courts.-Id.

45(4) (U.S.D.C.Okl.) Federal court will
discharge state prisoner, held for an act done
pursuant to federal law.-Ex parte Warner, 21
F. (2d) 542.

Prohibition agent, held for murder by state for
shooting of prisoner arrested for felony and at-
tempting to escape, held entitled to discharge on
babeas corpus.-Id.

54 (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Habeas corpus peti-
tions, alleging that trials of criminal prosecu-
tions in state court were affected by mob spirit
and violated constitutional rights, held insuffi-
cient to show trial by jury was nullity.-John-
son v. Middlebrooks, 21 F. (2d) 964.

15 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Removability of trade fix-
tures is determined by consideration of physi-
cal annexation, adaption to realty, nature of fix-
tures, legal policy, situation of parties and pur-
pose of making annexation.-In re Shelar, 21 F.
(2d) 136.

Tenant may generally remove trade fixtures.
-Id.

16 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Tenant may generally re-
move agricultural fixtures.-In re Shelar, 21 F.
(2d) 136.

17 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Tenant may generally re-
move domestic fixtures.-In re Shelar, 21 F.(2d)
136.

35 (2) (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Evidence held to show
tenant erecting wooden silo was to have right
of removal as against landlord.-In re Shelar,
21 F.(2d) 136.

GUARANTY.

II. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION.

27 (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Guaranties can-
not be extended beyond plain import, without

habeas corpus for discharge of convict, are
court's jurisdiction and power to pronounce
sentence.-McIntosh v. White, 21 F. (2d) 934.
~92(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) District Court, on
habeas corpus proceeding by applicant for ad-
mission, may only determine fairness of hear-
ing. Wong Wey v. Johnson, 21 F. (2d) 963.

96 (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) District Court is
without jurisdiction in habeas corpus proceed-
ing by applicant for admission, in case evidence
supports decision of Board of Special Inquiry.
-Wong Wey v. Johnson, 21 F. (2d) 963.

96 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Order of deportation is
not set aside on habeas corpus because strict
rules of evidence were not followed where
hearing was fair.-Ex parte Mouratis, 21 F.
(2d) 694.

96 (U.S.D.C.Ind.) Errors of law by trial
court having jurisdiction cannot be reviewed
on habeas corpus.-Stephenson v. Daly, 21 F.
(2d) 625.

HIGHWAYS.

III. CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENT, AND

REPAIR.

Guaranty contracts are to be given fairly
strict construction.-Id.

37 (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Conjugal part-
nership held not liable on notes under guaranty
of maker given by husband alone (Civ. Code
Porto Rico, § 1752).-Guerra v. American Co-
lonial Bank of Porto Rico, 21 F. (2d) 56.

Guarantor held not liable on notes given and
accepted after term of written guaranty, not-
withstanding provision that maker's signature
should bind guarantor.-Id.

45(2) (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Legality of arrest
in interstate extradition should be tested in
state court (28 USCA § 455).-Ex parte Thomp-
son, 21 F.(2d) 74.

45(2) (U.S.D.C.Okl.) Acts of Congress rel-
ative to habeas corpus do not demand taking of
prisoner from state custody in advance of trial.
-Ex parte Warner, 21 F. (2d) 542.

45(3) (U.S.D.C.Ind.) Federal court will
not discharge prisoner restrained by state, in
violation of federal Constitution, where ques-
tions are before state Supreme Court in ap-
peals (Const. Amend. 14).-Stephenson v. Daly,
21 F. (2d) 625.

Whether state prisoner, convicted under valid
law, is restrained of his liberty without due
process of law, will not be determined by feder-

tor could recover from subcontractor's surety
"interest" on amount used in completing con-
tract over amounts plaintiff received in current
payments.-New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. W.
T. Taylor Const. Co., 21 F. (2d) 1002.

HOMICIDE.

V. EXCUSABLE OR JUSTIFIABLE
CIDE.

105 (U.S.D.C.Okl.) Officer may shoot one
fleeing after committing felony and refusing to
stop on demand.-Ex parte Warner, 21 F. (2d)
542.

INDEMNITY.

13(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Employer of sea-
man may not recover of one negligently injur-
ing seaman for cost of cure imposed on employ-
er by contract and law of flag of ship.-The
Federal No. 2, 21 F. (2d) 313, affirming judg-
ment (D. C.) 14 F. (2d) 530.

INDIANS.

16(5) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Choctaw allottee's
five-year lease on restricted homestead, made
with approval of Secretary of the Interior, held
valid, though made before expiration of prior
one-year commercial lease (Act May 27, 1908,
§2 [35 Stat. 3121; 25 USCA § 356).-U. S. v.
Haddock, 21 F. (2d) 165.

23 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Secretary of Interior's
approval did not make valid gift by Indian
which he was incapable of making because of
mental incompetency.-Barnett V. Equitable
Trust Co. of New York, 21 F. (2d) 325.

Defendants, holding funds of Indian removed
from custody of Secretary of Interior under in-
valid instrument, held same for benefit of right-
ful owner.-Id.

Defendants receiving funds of Indian under
invalid instrument must account for property
and turn same over to Secretary of Interior.
-Id.

Information

~125 (31) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.)
charging both "selling" and "furnishing" of
liquor in one count held bad for duplicity (Na-
tional Prohibition Act [27 USCA §§ 12, 46]).-
Creel v. U. S., 21 F. (2d) 690.

VII. MOTION TO QUASH OR DISMISS, AND
DEMURRER.

133(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Objection to evi-
dence is not sufficient challenge to indictment.
-Boehm v. U. S., 21 F. (2d) 283.

146 (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Legal sufficiency of
indictment should in federal court be tested by
demurrer.-Boehm v. U. S., 21 F.(2d) 283.

105(1) (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Equity court, in pro-
ceeding to restrain arrest and seizing prize
fight films, cannot determine evidentiary value
of films or admissibility in criminal case (18
USCA §§ 405-407).-Cullen v. Esola, 21 F.(2d)
877.

Theater operator may not restrain federal
officers from making arrests and seizure of
prize fight films (18 USCA §§ 405-407).-Id.

United States attorney will not be enjoined
from repeatedly entering theater to seize prize
fight films, copied within state after interstate
transportation (18 USCA §§ 405-407).-Id.
Equity court will not determine effect of re-
peated seizures of evidence before criminal
trial.-Id.

III. ACTIONS FOR INJUNCTIONS.

128 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) State or federal officers
will not be enjoined from instituting criminal
proceedings, except on clear showing of right.
-Cullen v. Esola, 21 F. (2d) 877.

INSANE PERSONS.

IX. ACTIONS,

IX. ISSUES, PROOF, AND VARIANCE.

184 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Where witness' tes-
timony as to bankrupt's property concealment
was of inferential character, and grand jury
had heard same testimony, allegation of lack
of knowledge held not fatal variance between
indictment and proof.-Kanner v. U. S., 21 F.
(2d) 285.

Claims of variance in grand jurors' allega-
tions of ignorance of details and proof are not
favored.-Id.

XI. WAIVER OF DEFECTS AND OBJEC-
TIONS, AND AIDER BY VERDICT.
202 (8) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Conviction on du-
plicitous information cannot be aided by ver-
dict, where offenses are subject to different pun-
ishment.-Creel v. U. S., 21 F. (2d) 690.

INFANTS.

VII. ACTIONS.

78(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Interests of
minor children, intervening to prevent sale of
property inherited from mother to satisfy judg-
ment against father, held to require appoint-
ment of guardian ad litem (Civ. Code Porto
Rico, § 230).-Guerra v. American Colonial Bank
of Porto Rico, 21 F. (2d) 56.

INJUNCTION.

II. SUBJECTS OF PROTECTION AND
RELIEF.

(E) Public Officers and Boards and Mu-
nicipalities.

74 (U.S.D.C.Ohio) Injunction does not lie
against executive officer as respects discretion-
ary duties, but purely ministerial acts are sub-
ject to such control.-Western Union Tele-
graph Co. v. Tax Commission of Ohio, 21 F.
(2d) 355.

guardian of Indian as mental incompetent had
been set aside did not prevent plaintiff as pro-
chein ami from maintaining suit to have gift
declared_void.-Barnett v. Equitable Trust Co.
of New York, 21 F.(2d) 325.

INSURANCE.

III. INSURANCE AGENTS AND BRO-
KERS.

(A) Agency for Insurer.

84 (4) (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Agent appointed
to represent a life insurance company held
agent of the company and not of the general
agent by whom he was appointed.--Hirsch-
mann v. Bank of Dassel, 21 F.(2d) 263.

V. THE CONTRACT IN GENERAL.
(A) Nature, Requisites, and Validity.
~~130(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Application for
life insurance and acceptance under misunder-
standing of kind of policy desired held not to
have constituted contract.-Drake v. Missouri
State Life Ins. Co., 21 F. (2d) 39.

IX. AVOIDANCE OF POLICY FOR MISREP-
RESENTATION, FRAUD, OR BREACH
OF WARRANTY OR CONDITION.

(A) Grounds in General.
250(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) Statute controls as
to effect of statements in application.-Union
Indemnity Co. v. Dodd, 21 F. (2d) 709.

256 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) Applicant for in-
surance owes to company same good faith he
may demand of it.-Union Indemnity Co. v.
Dodd. 21 F. (2d) 709.

Positive untrue statement in application will
be deemed to have been made willfully with in-
tent to deceive.--Id.

(C) Matters Relating to Person Insured.
~299 (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) Misstatements in ap-
plication for accident insurance as to previous

retain-

XIV. NOTICE AND PROOF OF LOSS.
560(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Insurer,
ing proofs of loss without giving notice of ob-
jections until after suit, could not question their
sufficiency.-St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v.
American Food Products Co., 21 F. (2d) 733.

XVIII. ACTIONS ON POLICIES.

665(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Evidence held_to
support finding of amount of damage from fire
to insured cargo.-St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins.
Co. v. American Food Products Co., 21 F.(2d)
733.

668 (6) (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) Under Virginia
law, materiality of representation in application
is for court.-Union Indemnity Co. v. Dodd, 21
F. (2d) 709.

XX. MUTUAL BENEFIT INSURANCE.
(E) Beneficiaries and Benefits,
784 (6) (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Provision in con、
stitution of benefit association requiring change
of beneficiary to be effected in certain manner
held for benefit of insurer alone.--Arrington v.
Grand Lodge of Brotherhood of Railroad Train-
men. 21 F. (2d) 914.

784(7) (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Instrument held ef-
fective to change beneficiary in mutual benefit
certificate, in absence of objection by Brother-
hood.-Arrington v. Grand Lodge of Brother-
hood of Railroad Trainmen, 21 F. (2d) 914.

INTEREST.

II. RATE.

28 (U.S.D.C.Ga.) Interest on value of car-
go not delivered is recoverable at rate prevail
ing at place of suit.-Alexander Eccles & Co.
v. Strachan Shipping Co., 21 F. (2d) 656.

INTERNAL REVENUE.

7(3) (U.S.D.C.Okl.) Income from exempt
Indian allotment held not taxable.-Richards v.
U. S., 21 F. (2d) 94.

7(11) (U.S.D.C.III.) Proceeds of manufac-
turer's sales made, but not collected, during tax
year, are not taxable income for that year.-
Coley v. Pickering, 21 F. (20) 247.

~~7(17) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Payments from net
earnings on account of good will purchased not
to be credited as "invested capital" in comput-
ing income taxes.-Baker & Taylor Co. v. U. S.,
21 F.(2d) 787.

7(19) (U.S.D.C.Ky.) Corporation held not
entitled to deduct notes receivable from income
as loss sustained during year 1920 (Revenue
Act 1918, § 234a[4], being Comp. St. §
633Cpp).-U. S. v. Royal Indemnity Co., 21
F. (2d) 65.

Corporation could not deduct notes given for
lease royalties as worthless debt, where it was
required to pay royalty, whether it operated
lease or not (Revenue Act 1918, § 234a [5], be-
ing Comp. St. § 6336% pp).-Id.

47(19) (U.S.D.C.Ohio) Foundry held not to
sustain loss of good will, authorizing deduction
in determination of taxable income, by sale of
capital assets.-Acme, Palmers & De Mooy
Foundry Co. v. Weiss, 21 F. (2d) 492.

7(24) (U.S.D.C.Ky.) Deduction to be made
for income tax purposes from proceeds of life
policies at maturity of term determined (Reve-
nue Act 1918, § 213b, subd. 2 [Comp. St. §
6336%ff]).—Alexander v. Lucas, 21 F. (2d) 68.

7 (28) (U.S.D.C.Ga.) Corporation carrying
on real estate and insurance soliciting business
out of surplus of previous years held "personal
service corporation" (Revenue Act 1918. § 200
[Comp. St. § 6336a]).—Alexander & Garrett
v. U. S., 21 F. (2d) 547.

7(28) (U.S.D.C.III.) Private bank, organ-
ized under agreement called and intended as one
of partnership, held not subject to income tax
as corporation (Revenue Act 1918, § 1 [Comp.
St. § 637142]).-Hoffman v. U. S., 21 F.(2d)
241.

7(28) (U.S.D.C.Ky.) Corporation must
clearly and unmistakably establish its asserted
right to be classified as "personal service corpo-
ration" (Revenue Act, $ 200 [Comp. St. §
6336a1).-Thomas E. Basham Co. v. Lucas,
21 F.(2d) 550.

Whether corporation is "personal service cor-
poration" depends on facts of particular case
(Revenue Act 1918, § 200 [Comp. St. §
6338a]).-Id.

Corporation engaged in advertising agency
business, deriving substantial profits from
cash discounts and invested capital, held not
"personal service corporation" (Revenue Act
1918, § 200 [Comp. St. § 6336a]).—Id.
0-7(31) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Automobile insurance
exchange held properly required to pay income
tax on interest from investments of premium
receipts and reserves.-Pickering V. Alyea-
Nichols Co., 21 F. (2d) 501, reversing judg-
ment (D. C.) Alyea-Nichols Co. v. U. S., 12 F.
(2d) 998.

8(8) (U.S.D.C.Cal.) In California, commu-
nity property is subject to estate tax as en-
tirety on death of husband.-Talcott v. U. S., 21
F. (2d) 493.

Interest on trust fund for permanent mainte-
nance of cemetery held not part of gross or tax-
able net income" of seller of lots.-Id.

7(17) (U.S.D.C.Ala.) Coal held article con-
tributing to prosecution of the war (Revenue
Act 1918, § 234a (8), being Comp. St. § 6336-
pp).-Corona Coal Co. v. U. S., 21 F.(2d)

489.

Openings and development work necessary for
operation of a coal mine held "constructions"
and "facilities" for production of an article
contributing to prosecution of the war (Revenue
Act 1918, § 234a (8), being Comp. St. § 6336-
spp).-Id.

Tax statute must be liberally construed in
favor of taxpayer and to carry out legislative
intent (Revenue Act 1918, § 234a (8), being
Comp. St. § 6336% pp).-Id.

"general," within statute relating to property
passing under "general power" of appointment,
depends, not on manner or exercise, but on ab-
sence of limitations respecting beneficiaries
(Revenue Act 1918, § 402 [e], being Comp. St.
§ 63384c).-Whitlock-Rose v. McCaughn, 21
F. (2d) 161, affirming decree (D. C.) 15 F.(2d)
591.

Testamentary power, authorizing donee to
appoint by will any persons to take property,
held taxable as "general" power (Revenue Act
1918, § 402 [e], being Comp. St. § 6336c).
-Id.

8(11) (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Transfers “in con-
templation of death," for estate tax purposes,
need not be in contemplation of imminent death
(Revenue Act 1918, § 402c [Comp. St. § 6336
c]).-Rengstorff v. McLaughlin, 21 F.(2d) 177.

Transfers of property by a woman 83 years
old to her children held made "in contemplation

of death" (Revenue Act 1918, § 402c [Comp.
St. § 63364c]).-Id.

~~~8(11) (U.S.D.C.Mo.) Conveyances by aged
grantor held not made "in contemplation of
death," within meaning of statute (Revenue
Act 1918, §§ 400-410 [Comp. St. §§ 633634a-
63364k]).—Smart v. U. S., 21 F. (2d) 188.
That aged grantor must realize that death is
not distant is alone insufficient to show convey-
ance made in contemplation of death (Revenue
Act 1918, §8_400-410 [Comp. St. §§ 63364a-
63364k]).—Id.

con-

8(11) (U.S.D.C.Tex.) Transfer of property
by woman to children held not made in "
templation of death" (Revenue Act 1921, § 402
(c), being Comp. St. § 63364c).-Tips v. Bass,
21 F. (2d) 460.

8(13) (U.S.D.C.Tex.) A part of property
transferred by a decedent held subject to es-
tate tax (Revenue Act 1921, § 402(c), being
Comp. St. § 63364c).-Tips v. Bass, 21 F. (2d)
460.

8(14) (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Where decedent de-
posited proceeds of inherited property in bank
and checked it out in payment of securities she
held at her death, estate held not entitled to de-
duction of value of property as received "in ex-
change for" property inherited within five years
(Revenue Act 1918, § 403 (a), subd. 2 [Comp. St.
§ 63363⁄4d]).-U. S. v. Rodenbough, 21 F.(2d)
781.

9(5) (U.S.D.C.Ohio) Iron company, oper-
ating boats to transport ore as incident to pros-
ecution of its business, held not "common car-
rier," within Revenue Acts (Revenue Acts 1917
and 1918, §§ 500, 501, subd. [c]).-Cleveland-
Cliffs Iron Co. v. Routzahn, 21 F. (2d) 457.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue cannot ex-
tend provisions of Revenue Act to include those
not mentioned therein as carriers (Revenue Act
1917).-Id.

Revenue Act provision for tax for transporta-
tion held applicable to common carriers, unless
other agencies are expressly included (Revenue
Acts 1917 and 1918, §§ 500, 501).-Id.

insur-

9(7) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Automobile
ance exchange held "association," within stat-
ute providing for tax on issuance of policies
(Revenue Act 1917, §§ 504, 505 [Comp. St.
§§ 63094a, 63094b1: Revenue Act 1918, §
503 [Comp. St. § 6309%d]).-Pickering v. Al-
yea-Nichols Co., 21 F.(2d) 501, reversing judg-
ment (D. C.) Alyea-Nichols Co. v. U. S., 12
F. (2d) 998.

Automobile insurance exchange need not be
association, to be subject to tax on issuance of
policies (Revenue Act 1917, §§ 504, 505 [Comp.
St. §§ 63094a, 63094b]; Revenue Act 1918,
§ 503 [Comp. St. § 6309%d]).-Id.

Whether automobile indemnity insurance
business is conducted for profit is immaterial,
in levying policy tax (Revenue Act 1917, $$
504, 505 [Comp. St. 88 63094a, 63094b];
Revenue Act 1918, § 503 [Comp. St. §
6309%d]).-Id.

Policy tax against automobile indemnity in-
surance association cannot be avoided on plea
that subscriber's participation is so slight he
cannot be said to transact business of insur-
ance (Revenue Act 1917, §§ 504, 505 [Comp.
St. §§ 63094a, 63094b1; Revenue Act 1918,
§ 503 [Comp. St. § 6309%d]).—Id.

Policy tax against automobile indemnity in-
surance association held not defeated on ground
that premiums were advance deposits to in-
sure payment of subscriber's share of loss
(Revenue Act 1917, §§ 504, 505 [Comp. St. §§
63094a, 63094b]; Revenue Act 1918, § 503
[Comp. St. § 6309%d]).—Id.

9(7) (U.S.D.C.III.) County mutual relief
association, paying death benefits to dependents
of its members from assessments levied, held
subject to policy tax (Revenue Act 1918, § 503
and $231, par. 10 [Comp. St. $$ 6309%d,
6336%]).-Shelby County Mut. Relief Ass'n
v. Schwaner, 21 F. (2d) 252.

9(11) (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Phrases of statute
taxing specified articles sold or leased by man-
ufacturer, producer, or importer are to be giv
en meaning possessed in trades concerned
(Revenue Act 1918, § 900, and Revenue Act
1921, § 900 [Comp. St. § 6309% a]).-Philadel-
phia Storage Battery Co. v. Lederer, 21 F. (2d)
320.

Statute taxing automobiles and motorcycles,
parenthetically including "accessories therefor,
sold on or in connection therewith or with the
sale thereof," places manufacturers of vehicles
and manufacturers of accessories on the same
plane (Revenue Act 1918, § 900, and Revenue
Act 1921, § 900 [Comp. St. § 6309%a]).-Id.

Statute taxing accessories for automobiles
held not to tax storage batteries; "for"; "ac-
cessories" (Revenue Act 1918, § 900, and Rev
enue Act 1921, § 900 [Comp. St. § 6309%a]).
Id.

held

9 (23) (U.S.D.C.Wash.) Corporation
not "engaged in business" in one year, but so en-
gaged and subject to capital stock tax in follow-
ing years (Revenue Act 1921, § 1000 [Comp. St.
$5980n]; Revenue Act 1924 [26 USCA § 223]).
-Monroe Timber Co. v. Poe, 21 F. (2d) 766.

9 (26) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Automobile insur-
ance exchange held properly required to pay
capital stock tax.-Pickering v. Alyea-Nichols
Co., 21 F.(2d) 501, reversing judgment (D. C.)
Alyea-Nichols Co. v. U. S., 12 F. (2d) 998.

9(26) (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Holding company,
handling assets of estate for profit of heirs held
corporation "doing business," and subject to
capital stock tax (Revenue Act 1924, § 700a [1],
being 26 USCA § 223 [1]).-Conhaim Holding
Co. v. Willcuts, 21 F.(2d) 91.

9(27) (U.S.D.C.Ala.) Coal held article con
tributing to prosecution of the war (Revenue
Act 1918. § 234a (8), being Comp. St. § 6336-
pp).-Corona Coal Co. v. U. S., 21 F. (2d)

489.

Openings and development work necessary
for operation of a coal mine held "construc-
tions" and "facilities" for production of an
article contributing to prosecution of the war
(Revenue Act 1918, § 234a (8), being Comp. St.
§ 6336% pp).—Id.

Tax statute must be liberally construed in
favor of taxpayer and to carry out legislative
intent (Revenue Act 1918, § 234a (8), being
Comp. St. § 6336% pp).-Id.

9 (27) (U.S.D.C.Ga.) Real estate and in-
surance soliciting corporation, using collec-
tions not remitted to owners to pay expenses,
held to have only "nominal capital" (Revenue
Act 1917, §§ 201, 207 209 [Comp. St. $8
6336b, 6336h, 6336%]).-Alexander &
Garrett v. U. S., 21 F. (2d) 547.

9(27) (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Proceeds from sale
of stock of affiliated company in excess of price
paid for assets of such company held not "tax-
able gain."-United Drug Co. v. Nichols, 21 F.
(2d) 160.

9(27) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Payments from net
earnings on account of good will purchased not
to be credited as "invested capital" in computing
profits taxes.-Baker & Taylor Co. v. U. S., 21
F.(2d) 787.

9(27) (U.S.D.C.Ohio) Enumerated section
of Revenue Act held applicable for determining
invested capital in computing excess profits
tax, when definitive section is inapplicable (Rev-
enue Act 1917, §§ 207, 210 [Comp. St. $$
63363h, 6336%k]).-Feilbach Co. v. Niles, 21
F. (2d) 495.

9(27) (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Money used for sal
aries, office rent, supplies, and incidental ex-
penses held not taxable "capital" (Revenue Act
1917, §§ 209, 210 [Comp. St. §§ 6336%), 6336-
k]).-F. Wallis Armstrong Co. v. McCaughn,
21 F.(2d) 636,

Corporate advertising agency, making collec
tions so promptly as to eliminate necessity of
using its own capital, held to have only "nomi-