Alfred Paul Murrah

He found patent validity insufficient by itself where the accused device operated differently within the relevant field.

“The Court is, therefore, of the opinion that within the scope herein outlined and giving to each of the patents involved the full and complete protection to which it is entitled by the rule governing the same, the Mason patent is valid but it is not infringed by the Halliburton patent and consistent with the views herein expressed the Court has this day -filed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the defendant is directed to submit an appropriate decree in consonance therewith.”

He used a series of failed rescue efforts and the final reorganization decision as the identifiable event fixing a stock loss.

“But when considered together, as a series of transactions culminating in the decision of the creditors who had control under the provisions of the reorganization act not to accord any value to the common stock, these occurrences constituted an identifiable event evidenced by closed transactions. Furthermore, book value given to the stock by the balance sheet in March and June of 1935 and considered by the Board as evidence of value must be considered in the light of the ultimate result of negotiations for a plan of reorganization. This Court held in Lambert v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, supra, that the stock in a corporation adjudged bankrupt in- 1933, having a conversion value until the latter part of that year and none afterwards, became worthless upon the expiration of the conversion offer; and in the absence of a showing that the stock had value under reorganization, the loss occurred in the year in which it was adjudged bankrupt (1933) under the reorganization amendment, and denied a deduction claimed in 1934. Compare Coleman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 10 Cir., 81 F.2d 455. We conclude as a matter of law that as far as human insight and practical judgment dictate, the value of the stock Became worthless when it was finally determined after a series of negotiations that no value could be given to the stock in the reorganization of the Company. Bancroft v. United States, Ct.Cl., 33 F.Supp. 225. We hold that the identifiable events conclusively proving the worthlessness of the stock occurred in 1935, and that the facts established the loss in that year and that the petitioner is entitled to deduction. The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is reversed in accordance with the views herein expressed.”

He applied equitable subrogation only after comparing the competing equities and finding recovery would not defeat an equal claim.

“subrogation will be granted or a charge enforced in a court of equity only where an equitable result would be reached, but not to work injustice to another in the defeat of an equal equity. Northern Trust Co. v. Consolidated Elevator Co., 142 Minn. 132, 171 N.W. 265, 4 A.L.R. 510. Under these well established principles, the court is of the opinion that the equities of the complainant are sufficient to justify a recovery under this doctrine, if it were not entitled to recovery under the agreement executed between the corporation and the complainant, pursuant to which indemnity bond was executed. The Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the trust is liable to the complainant for the amount expended under the indemnity agreement and that under the agreement the complainant is entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee. The court does not recall having heard any testimony concerning the reasonableness to such attorney’s fee. The complainants have asked for $2,500. This has not been challenged but the court feels that $1,500 would be a reasonable attorney’s fee for services rendered in this case and the parties may submit findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with the views herein expressed.”