SPALDING

v.

DICKINSON

Citator

Cited By (22 total)

• Dorsey v. Gill, 148 F.2d 857 (D.C. Cir. 1945)
  …U.S. 224, 225, 22 S.Ct. 889, 46 L.Ed. 1137; Ledbetter v. United States, 170 U.S. 606, 612, 18 S.Ct. 774, 776, 42 L.Ed. 1162; Hodgson v. Vermont, 168 U.S. 262, 271, 18 S.Ct. 80, 82, 42 L.Ed. 461; Matthews v. United States, 161 U.S. 500, 16 S.Ct. 640, 40 L.Ed. 786.” [Italics supplied] In several more recent cases, the rule has been stated or rec [*875] oguized by the Supreme Cburt,103 and by other federal courts.104 No question is raised, on this appeal, as to the original jurisdiction of the Court over the…
• Mills Novelty Co. v. Monarch Tool & MFG. Co., 49 F.2d 28 (6th Cir. 1931)
  …is distinct manifestation, even though wholly by parol, that he thought best not to accept is sufficient to terminate his right of acceptance and to re-vest the title in the bankrupt. Sessions v. Romadka, supra; Dushane v. Beall, 161 U. S. 513, 515, 16 S. Ct. 637, 40 L. Ed. 791; Bank v. Lasater, 196 U. S. 115, 119, 25 S. Ct. 206, 49 L. Ed. 408; Smith v. Gordon, 6 Law Rep. 313, Fed. Cas. No. 13052; Taylor v. Irwin (C. C. Iowa) 20 F. 615. While we find no controlling or persuasive precedent, it seems obvious t…
• Greenwood Cnty. v. Duke Power Co., 81 F.2d 986 (4th Cir. 1936)
  …This case is not to be decided by the purposes and plans of the board, but by the validity of what is about to be done under the attacked contracts.” See, also, Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U.S. 483, 498, 16 S.Ct. 631, 40 L.Ed. 780; Spalding v. Dickinson, 161 U.S. 499, 16 S.Ct. 637, 40 L.Ed. 786; West v. Hitchcock, 205 U.S. 80, 85, 86, 27 S.Ct. 423, 51 L.Ed. 718. It is, of course, true that, as Congress may not encroach upon the reserved powers of the states, officers acting under its authority may not so encroa…