AMERICAN BOND AND MORTGAGE COMPANY ET AL.
v.
UNITED STATES
Mr. Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court.
The same Circuit Court of Appeals which certified questions in White v. Johnson, ante, p. 367, also certified six questions in this case. While th,ey are differently phrased, they are in substance the same.
Here a suit in equity was brought by the United States to restrain the proprietor of a broadcasting station from disregarding an order of the Federal Radio Commission, revoking its license, and from operating in( defiance of the provisions of the Radio Act. As in the other case, the appellants admittedly failed to avail themselves of the right of appeal afforded by the Act.
The reasons stated in the White case for not answering the questions therein certified apply here.
The certificate is dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Bond & Mortg. Co. v. United States, 52 F.2d 318 (7th Cir. 1931)…propositions to the Supreme Court, under the supposed authority of section; 346, tit. 28, US CA.1 But the Supreme Court concluded that the questions certified need not be answered, and dismissed the certificate. American Bond & Mortgage Co. et al., 282 U. S. 374, 51 S. Ct. 118, 75 L. Ed. 395. Upon the second presentation of this appeal to this court, appellants narrowed their previous contentions by not pressing their attack upon the constitutionality of the Federal Radio Act, but contended that the order…1 / 2
-
Rottenberg v. United States, 137 F.2d 850 (1st Cir. 1943)…ny cases as furnishing analogies bearing more or less directly on the present problem. See Johnson v. United States, 8 Cir., 1942, 126 F. 2d 242; American Bond & Mortgage Co. v. United States, 7 Cir., 1931, 52 F. 2d 318, certificate dismissed, 1931, 282 U.S. 374, 51 S.Ct. 118, 75 L.Ed. 395; Bradley v. City of Richmond, 1913, 227 U.S. 477, 485, 33 S.Ct. 318, 57 L.Ed. 603; Texas & Pacific Ry. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 1907, 204 U.S. 426, 440, 441, 27 S.Ct. 350, 51 L.Ed. 553, 9 Ann. Cas. 1075; United States v…
-
Ladish Co. v. United States, 301 F.2d 257 (7th Cir. 1962)…rder to secure the 1951 excess profits tax. This required the doing of what Regulation 130 directed and what the Commissioner did in recomputing plaintiff’s return. Plaintiff has not shown any “weighty reasons,” Fawcus Machine Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 374, 378, 51 S.Ct. 144, 75 L.Ed. 397 (1931) for finding Regulation 130 invalid. We conclude that the District Court judgment, based on Regulation 130, is correct and it is hereby affirmed. . Act Jan. 3, 1951, ch. 1199, 64 Stat. 1137. . The purpose of…