Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Eliason - 41 U.S. 291 (1842) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Eliason, 41 U.S. 16 Pet. 291 291 (1842) United States v. Eliason 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 291 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus An action was brought by the United States against Captain Eliason for a balance due by him as disbursing officer at Fortress Calhoun. The defendant claimed an allowance as commissions on the disbursement of large sums of money under the orders of the War Department in 1834, and the years included up to 1838, under the regulations of the War Department contained in the Army Regulations printed in 1821, "at the rate of two dollars per diem, during the continuance of such disbursements, provided the whole amount of emoluments shall not exceed two and a half percent on the sum expended." By a subsequent regulation of the War Department of 14 March, 1835, adopted in consequence of the provisions of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Porterfield v. Clark - 43 U.S. 76 (1844) U.S. Supreme Court Porterfield v. Clark, 43 U.S. 76 (1844) Porterfield v. Clark 43 U.S. 76 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY Syllabus An Act of the Legislature of Virginia, passed in May, 1779, "establishing a land office and ascertaining the terms and manner of granting waste and unappropriated lands," contained, amongst other exceptions, the following, viz.: Page 43 U. S. 77 no entry or location of land shall be admitted within the country and limits of the Cherokee Indians. The tract of country lying on the west of the Tennessee River was not then the country of the Cherokee Indians, and, of course, not within the exception. A title may be tried in Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee as effectually upon a caveat as in any other mode, and the parties, as also those claiming under them, are estopped by the decision. The boundaries of the Cherokees, as fixed by treaties, historically exa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Chouteau v. Eckhart - 43 U.S. 344 (1844) U.S. Supreme Court Chouteau v. Eckhart, 43 U.S. 2 How. 344 344 (1844) Chouteau v. Eckhart 43 U.S. (2 How.) 344 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI Syllabus This Court has jurisdiction under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act in a Missouri land cause, where the title is not to be determined by Spanish laws alone, but where the construction of an act of Congress is involved to sustain the title. The obligation of perfecting titles under Spanish concessions, which was assumed Page 43 U. S. 345 by the United States in the Louisiana treaty, was a political obligation to be carried out by the legislative department of the government. Congress, in confirming or rejecting claims, acted as the successor of the intendant general, and both exercised in this respect a portion of sovereign power. The Act of Congress passed on 13 June, 1812, confirming the titles and claims of certain towns and villages to village lots ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Searight v. Stokes - 44 U.S. 151 (1845) U.S. Supreme Court Searight v. Stokes, 44 U.S. 3 How. 151 151 (1845) Searight v. Stokes 44 U.S. (3 How.) 151 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus Under the acts of Congress ceding to Pennsylvania that part of the Cumberland Road which is within that state and the acts of Pennsylvania accepting the surrender, a carriage, whenever it is carrying the mail, must be held to be laden with the property of the United States within the true meaning of the compact, and consequently exempted from the payment of tolls. But this exemption does not apply to any other property conveyed in the same vehicle, nor to any person traveling in it, unless he is in the service of the United States and passing along in pursuance of orders from the proper authority. Nor can the United States claim an exemption for more carriages than are necessary for the safe, speedy, and convenient conveyance of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Oliver v. Piatt - 44 U.S. 333 (1845) U.S. Supreme Court Oliver v. Piatt, 44 U.S. 333 (1845) Oliver v. Piatt 44 U.S. 333 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF OHIO Syllabus In cases of trust, where the trustee has violated his trust by an illegal conversion of the trust property, the cestui que trust has a right to follow the property into whosesoever hands he may find it, not being a bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration, without notice. Where a trustee has, in violation of his trust, invested the trust property or its proceeds in any other property, the cestui que trust has his option either to hold the substituted property liable to the original trust, or to hold the trustee himself personally liable for the breach of the trust. The option, however, belongs to the cestui que trust alone and is for his benefit, and not for the benefit of the trustee. If the trustee, after such an unlawful conversion of the trust property,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Freeman - 44 U.S. 556 (1845) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Freeman, 44 U.S. 3 How. 556 556 (1845) United States v. Freeman 44 U.S. (3 How.) 556 ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus Statutes in pari materia should be taken into consideration in construing a law. If a thing contained in a subsequent statute be within the reason of a former statute, it shall be taken to be within the meaning of that statute. And if it can be gathered from a subsequent statute in pari materia what meaning the legislature attached to the words of a former statute, this will amount to a legislative declaration of its meaning, and will govern the construction of the first statute. The meaning of the legislature may be extended beyond the precise words used in the law from the reason or motive upon which the legislature proceeded, from the end in view, or the purpose which was designed; the limita...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Chaires v. United States - 44 U.S. 611 (1845) U.S. Supreme Court Chaires v. United States, 44 U.S. 3 How. 611 611 (1845) Chaires v. United States 44 U.S. (3 How.) 611 APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF EAST FLORIDA Syllabus Where this Court has affirmed the title to lands in Florida and referred in its decree to a particular survey, it would not be proper for the court below to open the case for a rehearing for the purpose of adopting another survey. The court below can only execute the mandate of this Court. It has no authority to disturb the decree, and can only settle what remains to be done. This was an appeal from the Superior Court of East Florida and a sequel to the case reported in 35 U. S. 10 Pet. 308. The appellants filed in the court below the following petition: "To the Honorable Isaac H. Bronson, Judge of the Superior Court in and for the Eastern District of Florida." "The petition of Joseph Chaires of the said territory, executor of the last will and testam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. King - 44 U.S. 773 (1845) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. King, 44 U.S. 3 How. 773 773 (1845) United States v. King 44 U.S. (3 How.) 773 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR EAST LOUISIANA Syllabus The certificate of survey alleged to have been given by Trudeau on 14 June, 1797, and brought forward to sustain a grant to the Marquis de Maison Rouge, declared antedated and fraudulent. The circumstance that a copy of this paper was delivered by the Spanish authorities in 1803 is not sufficient to prevent its authenticity from being impeached. Leaving this certificate out of the case, the instruments executed by the Baron de Carondelet in 1795 and 1797 have not the aid of any authentic survey to ascertain and fix the limits of the land, and to determine its location. This Court has repeatedly decided, and in cases too where the instrument contained clear words of grant, that if the description was vague and indefinite, and there was no official survey to give it ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States ex Rel. Goodrich v. Guthrie - 58 U.S. 284 (1845) U.S. Supreme Court United States ex Rel. Goodrich v. Guthrie, 58 U.S. 17 How. 284 284 (1845) United States ex Rel. Goodrich v. Guthrie 58 U.S. (17 How.) 284 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus The Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Columbia had not the power to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Secretary of the Treasury to pay a judge of the Territory of Minnesota his salary for the unexpired term of his office, from which he had been removed by the President of the United States. No court has the power to command the withdrawal of money from the Treasury of the United States to pay any individual claim whatever. A mandamus can issue only in cases where the act to be done is merely ministerial, and with regard to which nothing like judgment or discretion in the performance of his duties is left to the officer. The question whether or not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Buchanan v. Alexander - 45 U.S. 20 (1846) U.S. Supreme Court Buchanan v. Alexander, 45 U.S. 4 How. 20 20 (1846) Buchanan v. Alexander 45 U.S. (4 How.) 20* ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF NORFOLK, STATE OF VIRGINIA Syllabus Money in the hands of a purser, although it may be due to seamen, is not liable to an attachment by the creditors of those seamen. A purser cannot be distinguished from any other disbursing agent of the government, and the rule is general that so long as money remains in the hands of a disbursing officer, it is as much the money of the United States as if it had not been drawn from the Treasury. A decision of a state court sanctioning such an attachment may be revised by this Court under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act. This is one of six cases depending upon the same principle, which have been brought before this Court by writs of error to the Circuit Superior Court for the County of Norfolk, State of Virginia, under t...
Tag this Judgment!