Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/208

 192

The Green Bag

of the interstate commerce clause, was possibly

adumbrated in its decision Jan. 17, holding invalid the Kansas "Bush" act of 1898 re quiring foreign corporations to pay a fee as a condition precedent to engaging in business

within, the state.

Western Union Telegraph

Co. v. Kansas (L. ed. adv. sheets Oct. term, No. 6, p. 190).

The court's opinion in this case was written by Mr. Justice Harlan. The decision

turned on the ﬁnding that the law imposes a burden on interstate commerce, which it

was declared a state could not do under the Constitution. Justice Harlan said the require ment was hostile alike to the letter and the

spirit of the Constitution. In the latter case Mr. Justice Holmes read an opinion in dissent, in which the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice McKenna concurred, and the late Justice Peckham would have concurred. Interstate Commerce. Power of Interstate Commerce Commission to Dictate Distribution of Cars Sustained. U. S. The Supreme Court of the United States decided the case of Interstate Commerce Com mission v. Illinois Central R. R. in favor of the

government Jan. 10.

The case involved the

right of the Interstate Commerce Commission to direct the distribution of cars in the interest of independent coal companies, and the power of the Interstate Commerce Commission was upheld in a decision delivered by Mr. Justice White. In announcing its decision the court over ruled two objections to the delegation of power

to the Commission; ﬁrst, that no such delega tion was made by the interstate commerce law respecting the distribution of company fuel cars as a means of prohibiting unjust prefer ences and undue discrimination, and, second,

that even if such powers should be conferred the order enjoined by the court below was beyond the authority conferred by the law. (L. ed. adv. sheets, Oct. term, No. 6, p. 155.) Patents. Prima Facie Infringement of Air

ship Patent—Essential Claims.

U. S.

The ﬁrst judicial opinion in American juris

prudence, it is believed, involving an airship was rendered by Judge Hazel of the United States Circuit Court at Buﬂalo Jan. 3, when he granted the Wright Company a preliminary injunction against the Herring-Curtiss Com

pany and Glenn H. Curtiss, restraining them from infringing the patents of the petitioner. The Court said :—

“The essential claims of an infringement are an aeroplane, or supporting surface. the lateral portions of which are capable of adjustment to attain diﬁ'erent angles of inci dence, and a vertical rudder in the rear of the machine. Claims further include as elements a horizontal rudder, which is positioned for ward of the machine, and means for raising and lowering it so as to present its upper and lower side to the pressure of the wind." Police Power. Municipal Ordinance Regu lating Weight of Loaves of Bread—Police Powers of llllunicipalities. Ill. The Supreme Court of Illinois, in City of Chicago v. Schmidinger (Dec. 22, reported Chicago Legal News Jan. 1), upheld as consti tutional the ordinance of the city of Chimgo providing that all bread sold should be of prescribed weight of loaves, and should bear labels plainly indicating the weight. The court said : "The power to regulate the sale and deter mine the weight of bread in the loaf when offered for sale, is a legitimate exercise of the police power by such municipalities as the

plaintiff, has uniformly been recognized by the courts, and the exercise of such power

is now too ﬁrmly established to be chal lenged. Munn v. People, 69 Ill. 80; People v. Wagner, 86 Mich. 594; Gnillotte v. City of New Orleans, 12 La. Ann. 432; Mayor v. Ynille, 3 Ala. 137; Paige v. Fazackerly, 36 Barb. 392;

Commonwealth v. McArthur, 152 Mass. 522; In re Nasmith, 2 Ont. 192.

Stock Transfer Tax Law. See Taxation. Taxation. Exemption of Property Used for Church Purposes— Property Leased to a Church and also to Other Tenants, not Exempt.

Mass. Where a religious organization owned a building, used in part for church purposes by means of a lease to a church society and in part for other purposes by leases to other tenants, it was held by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts that exemption from taxation, under the statute exempting church property, applies only to religious organiza tions occupying and using ediﬁces for church purposes,and the arrangement with the church society leasing the premises was not such as would show the building to be held in trust for the church within the meaning of the statute. Consequently the owner of the build ing could claim exemption only to the extent

of the special exemption granted in its charter of incorporation.

Evangelical Baptist Benevo