Court : US Supreme Court
Gaylords v. Kelshaw - 68 U.S. 81 (1863) U.S. Supreme Court Gaylords v. Kelshaw, 68 U.S. 1 Wall. 81 81 (1863) Gaylords v. Kelshaw 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 81 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF INDIANA Syllabus 1. In a bill to set aside a conveyance as made without consideration and in fraud of creditors, the alleged fraudulent grantor is a necessary defendant in the bill, and if being made defendant, his citizenship is not set forth on the record, the bill must be remanded or dismissed. 2. In such cases of remandment or dismissal, costs are allowed to a co-defendant, being the person charged with having received the fraudulent conveyance. The Gaylords, appellants here, had filed their bill in chancery in the Circuit Court for the District of Indiana, against the defendants Kelshaw and Butterworth, charging that they had an unsatisfied judgment at law in one of the Indiana courts against Kelshaw, and that some short time before the judgment was recovered, Kelshaw conveyed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Baldwin v. Hale - 68 U.S. 223 (1863) U.S. Supreme Court Baldwin v. Hale, 68 U.S. 1 Wall. 223 223 (1863) Baldwin v. Hale 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 223 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus A discharge obtained under the insolvent law of one state is not a bar to an action on a note given in and payable in the same state, the party to whom the note was given having been and being of a different state, and not having proved his debt against the defendant's estate in insolvency, nor in any manner been a party to those proceedings. This was a writ of error to the Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, the case, as appearing from an agreed statement of facts, being thus: J. W. Baldwin a citizen of Massachusetts, made, at Boston, in that state, his promissory note, payable there, in these words: "$2000 BOSTON, February 21, 1854" "Six months after date, I promise to pay to the order of myself, two thousand dollars, payable in Boston, value...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Minnesota Company v. St. Paul Company - 69 U.S. 609 (1864) U.S. Supreme Court Minnesota Company v. St. Paul Company, 69 U.S. 2 Wall. 609 609 (1864) Minnesota Company v. St. Paul Company 69 U.S. (2 Wall.) 609 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN Syllabus 1. Where a bill in equity is necessary to have a construction of the orders, decrees, and acts made or done by a federal court, the bill is properly filed in such federal court as distinguished from any state court, and it may be entertained in such federal court even though parties who are interested in having the construction made would not, from want of proper citizenship, be entitled to proceed by original bill of any kind in a court of the United States. In such a case, the question will not be whether the bill filed is supplemental or original in the technical sense of equity pleading, but whether it is to be considered as supplemental or entirely new and original, in that sense which the Supreme Court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
The Venice - 69 U.S. 258 (1864) U.S. Supreme Court The Venice, 69 U.S. 2 Wall. 258 258 (1864) The Venice 69 U.S. (2 Wall.) 258 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Syllabus 1. The military occupation of the City of New Orleans by the forces of the United States after the dispossession of the rebels from that immediate region in May, 1862, may be considered as having been substantially complete from the publication of General Butler's proclamation of the 6th (dated on the 1st) of that month, and all the rights and obligations resulting from such occupation, or from the terms of the proclamation, existed from the date of that publication. 2. This proclamation, in announcing, as it did, that "all rights of property" would be held "inviolate, subject only to the laws of the United Page 69 U. S. 259 States," and that "all foreigners not naturalized, claiming allegiance to their respective governments and not having made oath of allegiance to the go...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
De Sobry v. Nicholson - 70 U.S. 420 (1865) U.S. Supreme Court De Sobry v. Nicholson, 70 U.S. 3 Wall. 420 420 (1865) De Sobry v. Nicholson 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 420 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LOUISIANA Syllabus 1. A motion to dismiss a case from want of proper citizenship in the parties cannot be made at the trial and after pleading a general issue and special defenses. 2. Where a contract, under which a party would be prevented, from want of proper citizenship, from suing in the federal courts is set out but as inducement to a subsequent one under which he would not be so prevented, the jurisdiction of such courts will not be taken away from the fact of the old contract's being set forth as inducement only somewhat indefinitely. Coming, in such a case, within the principle of a contract defectively stated, but not of one defective, the mode of stating it is cured by the verdict. The Judiciary Act declares that the assignee of a chose in action shall not recover in a suit brou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Gilman v. Philadelphia - 70 U.S. 713 (1865) U.S. Supreme Court Gilman v. Philadelphia, 70 U.S. 3 Wall. 713 713 (1865) Gilman v. Philadelphia 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 713 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus The power to regulate commerce comprehends the control for that purpose, and to the extent necessary, of all the navigable waters of the United States which are accessible from a state other than those on which they lie, and includes necessarily the power to keep them open and free from any obstruction to their navigation, interposed by the states or otherwise. And it is for Congress to determine when its full power shall be brought into activity, and as to the regulations and sanctions which shall be provided. This power, however, covering as it does a wide field and embracing a great variety of subjects, some of the subjects will call for uniform rules and national legislation, while others can be best regulated by rules and provisions suggested by the varying c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Buck v. Colbath - 70 U.S. 334 (1865) U.S. Supreme Court Buck v. Colbath, 70 U.S. 3 Wall. 334 334 (1865) Buck v. Colbath 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 334 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA Syllabus 1. A suit prosecuted in the state courts to the highest court of such state against a marshal of the United States for trespass who defends himself on the ground that the acts complained of were performed by him under a writ of attachment from the proper federal court presents a case for a writ of error under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act Page 70 U. S. 335 when the final decision of the state courts is against the validity of the authority thus set up by the marshal. 2. The case of Freeman v. Howe, 24 How. 450, an action of replevin decided that property held by the marshal under a writ from the federal court could not be lawfully taken from his possession by any process issuing from a state court, and decided nothing more. 3. The ground of that decision was that the possessi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Insurance Company v. Ritchie - 72 U.S. 541 (1866) U.S. Supreme Court Insurance Company v. Ritchie, 72 U.S. 5 Wall. 541 541 (1866) Insurance Company v. Ritchie 72 U.S. (5 Wall.) 541 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus The jurisdiction of the circuit courts in original suits between citizens of the same state in internal revenue cases conferred or made clear by the Act of June 30, 1864, "to provide internal revenue," &c.;, 13 Stat at Large 241, was taken away by the Act of July 13, 1866, "to reduce internal taxation and to amend an act to provide internal revenue," &c.;, 14 id. 172. And suits originally brought in the circuit courts, and pending at the passage of this act, fell. This was an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Massachusetts dismissing a bill in equity filed by the Merchants' Insurance Company, a corporation created by the laws of Massachusetts and having its place of business in the City of Boston in that state against James...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
City of Philadelphia v. The Collector - 72 U.S. 720 (1866) U.S. Supreme Court City of Philadelphia v. The Collector, 72 U.S. 5 Wall. 720 720 (1866) City of Philadelphia v. The Collector 72 U.S. (5 Wall.) 720 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus 1. The jurisdiction of the circuit court in a case between citizens of he same state, under the internal revenue laws of July 1, 1862, and March 3, 1863, removed thereto from a state court under the Act of March 2, 1833 (the Force Bill), and before the passage of the Internal Revenue Act of June 30, 1864, is saved by the sixty-eighth section of the Internal Revenue Act of July 13, 1866, if the justice of said circuit court is of opinion that the case would be removable from the state court to the circuit court under the sixty-seventh section of the said Act of July 13, 1866. 2. Where a case, removed from a state court to a circuit court under the act of 1833, above mentioned, would be clearly removable under the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Barney v. Baltimore City - 73 U.S. 280 (1867) U.S. Supreme Court Barney v. Baltimore City, 73 U.S. 6 Wall. 280 280 (1867) Barney v. Baltimore City 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 280 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MARYLAND Syllabus 1. Part owners or tenants in common in real estate of which partition is asked in equity have an interest in the subject matter of the suit, and in the relief sought, so intimately connected with that of their cotenants that if these cannot be subjected to the jurisdiction of the court, the bill will be dismissed. 2. The Act of February 28, 1839 (set forth in the case), has no application to suits where the parties stand in this position, but has reference, among others, to suits at law against joint obligors in contract, verbal or written. 3. A citizen of the District of Columbia cannot be a party to a suit in the federal courts where the jurisdiction depends on the citizenship of the parties. 4. Although the simple fact that a transfer or conveyance of th...
Tag this Judgment!