Legal Opinion

United States v. Hawthorne

District Court, N.D. Texas

Decided March 11, 1940No. 214, 217PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ATWELL, District Judge.

The plaintiffs declare upon three bonds; twq in No. 214, and one in No. 217. These bonds were given by the defendants, who had planted cotton in .excess of their allowable quota, and were not, therefore, entitled to white marketing cards which allowed them to sell their cotton without the payment of any excess tax to the buyer, for remission to the Secretary of Agriculture. They held red cards which required the collecting of the excess tax of two cents per pound by the buyer.

In order to avoid this inconvenience, they agreed in each of the bonds that they would pay the…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Lynch v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  2. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  3. Daniels v. TearneySupreme Court of the United States · 1880
  4. Mulford v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
  5. United States v. Norwegian Barque TheklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1924

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State v. SpragueSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1974
  2. County of Sacramento v. City of SacramentoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
  3. Hawthorne v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1940
  4. United States v. R. L. Dixon & Bro., Inc.District Court, N.D. Texas · 1940
  5. United States v. ChristensenDistrict Court, E.D. Illinois · 1943

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API