Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

American Bond & Mortgage Co. v. United States

Am. Bond & Mortg. Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 374 (1931)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1931-01-05
Topic
general

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.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed American Bond & Mortgage Co. v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
10 opinions
AMERICAN BOND AND MORTGAGE COMPANYv. UNITED STATES,282 U.S. 374(1931)
51 S.Ct. 118
AMERICAN BOND AND MORTGAGE COMPANY ET AL.v. UNITED STATES.
CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.
No. 210.
Argued December 5, 1930.
Decided January 5, 1931.
Certificate presenting substantially the same questions as inWhitev.Johnson, ante, p. 367, dismissed on the authority of that case.
CERTIFICATE from the Circuit Court of Appeals, on an appeal
from a decree of the District Court enjoining the operation of a
broadcasting station in violation of the provisions of the Radio
Act.
Page 375
Mr. George W. Swain, with whomMessrs. Frank H. ScottandEdward B. Hayeswere on the brief, for American Bond and Mortgage Company et al.Solicitor General Thacher, with whomMessrs. Charles H.WestonandWilliam G. Davis, Special Assistants to the Attorney General, were on the brief, for the United States.
MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The same Circuit Court of Appeals which certified questions inWhitev.Johnson, ante, p. 367, also certified six questions in this case. While they 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 theWhitecase for not answering the questions therein certified apply here.The certificate is dismissed.