Nollman & Co. v. Wentworth Lunch Co.

217 U.S. 591, 30 S. Ct. 694, 54 L. Ed. 895, 1910 U.S. LEXIS 1989
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided April 18, 1910·No. 154·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Judgment affirmed on the authority of Toxaway Hotel Company v. Smothers & Co., decided February 21, 1910 (216 U. S. 439). 1

1

The pertinent part of the headnote in this case is as follows:

A corporation engaged principally in running hotels is not a corporation engaged principally in trading or mercantile pursuits, within the meaning of § 4, subs, b, of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898.

Where' Congress has not expressly declared a word to have' a particular meaning, it will be presumed to have used the word in its well-understood public and judicial meaning, and cases based on a declaration made by Parliament that the word has a certain meaning are not in point in determining the intent of .Congress in using the word.

An qccupation that is not trading is not a mercantile pursuit.

A corporation not otherwise amenable to the Bankruptcy Act does not become so because it incidentally engages in mercantile pursuit; and so held as to a hotel company which, in addition to inn-keeping in which it was principally engaged, conducted a small store as an 'incident to its hotel business.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Nollman & Co. v. Wentworth Lunch Co., 217 U.S. 591, 30 S. Ct. 694, 54 L. Ed. 895, 1910 U.S. LEXIS 1989 (1910).

217 U.S. 591 (Nollman & Co. v. Wentworth Lunch Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Weedin v. Wong Jun
7 F.2d 311 (Ninth Circuit, 1925)
In re Imperial Film Exchange
198 F. 80 (Second Circuit, 1912)