Phillips v. Commissioner

Holding that where "adequate opportunity [was] afforded for a later determination of legal rights, summary proceedings to secure prompt performance of pecuniary obligations to the government" were entirely consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment

Louisville Nashville R.R. v. Mottley

In Louisville Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 219 U.S. 467, it was held that an act of Congress, prohibiting the issuance of free transportation by interstate common carriers which invalidated a contract for transportation previously entered into and valid when made, did not have the effect of taking private property without compensation.

Pierce v. United States

In Pierce v. United States, 255 U.S. 398, 41 S.Ct. 365, 65 L.Ed. 697 (1921), for example, the government had obtained a conviction against a corporation and sought to enforce the penalty against the stockholders to whom the dissolved corporation's assets had been distributed.

Hollins v. Brierfield Coal Iron Co.

In Hollins v. Brierfield Coal Iron Co., 150 U.S. 371, 385, it was observed that a private corporation, when it becomes insolvent, holds its assets subject to somewhat the same kind of equitable lien and trust in favor of its creditors that exists in favor of the creditors of a partnership after becoming insolvent, and that in such case a lien and trust will be enforced by a court of equity in favor of creditors.

Meriwether v. Garrett

Recognizing principle that public property of a municipality was not subject to execution

Knoxville Iron Co. v. Harbison

In Knoxville Iron Co. v. Harbison, 183 U.S. 13, it was held that store orders issued for wages must be redeemable in cash.

Scovill v. Thayer

In Scovill v. Thayer, it was declared, among other things, that a contract between a corporation and its stockholders, that they should never be called upon to pay any other assessment than that paid at the outset, while good as between the corporation and the stockholders, was a fraud in law upon creditors, which they could have set aside whenever their rights intervened, and their claims were unsatisfied.

McDonald, Receiver, v. Williams

In McDonald, the United States Supreme Court held that although the National Bank Act made it ultra vires for the directors of a national banking association to declare a dividend out of capital, innocent shareholders who received the dividend in good faith and believed it to come out of the surplus of the corporation would not be required to pay the amount of the dividend over to the receiver for the bankrupt corporation.

Beveridge v. N.Y.E.R. Co.

In Beveridge v. New York Elevated R.R. Co. (112 N.Y. 1) (at p. 26) Judge GRAY writing for the court says: "Where the plaintiff seeks to base his right to maintain his action against a third party upon a contract made between that party and another, it must be one made or intended for his benefit.

Toof v. Martin