Court : US Supreme Court
Kelly v. Owen - 74 U.S. 496 (1868) U.S. Supreme Court Kelly v. Owen, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 496 496 (1868) Kelly v. Owen 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 496 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus 1. The Act of Congress of February 10, 1855, which declares "That any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or who shall be married to a citizen of the United States shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen" confers the privileges of citizenship upon women married to citizens of the United States if they are of the class of persons for whose naturalization the previous acts of Congress provide. 2. The terms "married," or "who shall be married" in the act do not refer to the time when the ceremony of marriage is celebrated, but to a state of marriage. They mean that whenever a woman who under previous acts might be naturalized is in a state of marriage to a citizen, she becomes, by that fact, a citizen also. His citizenship, whenever it ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Express Company v. Kountze Brothers - 75 U.S. 342 (1868) U.S. Supreme Court Express Company v. Kountze Brothers, 75 U.S. 8 Wall. 342 342 (1868) Express Company v. Kountze Brothers 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 342 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA Syllabus 1. The Act of February 22, 1848, which enacts that the provisions of the Act of February 22, 1847, transferring to the district courts of the United States cases of federal character and jurisdiction begun in the territorial courts of certain territories of the United States, and then admitted to the Union (none of which, on their admission as states, Page 75 U. S. 343 however, as it happened, were attached to any judicial circuits of the United States), shall apply to all cases which maybe pending in the supreme or other superior courts of any territory of the United States which may be admitted as a state at the time of its admission, is to be construed so as to transfer the cases into district courts of the Un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Cowles v. Mercer County - 74 U.S. 118 (1868) U.S. Supreme Court Cowles v. Mercer County, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 118 118 (1868) Cowles v. Mercer County 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 118 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus 1. A municipal corporation created by one state within its own limits may be sued in the courts of the United States by the citizens of another state. 2. The statutes of a state limiting the jurisdiction of suits against counties to circuit courts held within such counties can have no application to courts of the national government. A statute of Illinois enacts by one section that, "Each county established in the state shall be a body politic and corporate, by the name and style of 'The County of _____,' and by that name may sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, defend and be defended against, in any court of record, either in law or equity, or other place where justice shall be administered," and by another that "All actions, local...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Silver v. Ladd - 74 U.S. 219 (1868) U.S. Supreme Court Silver v. Ladd, 74 U.S. 74 U.S. 219 219 (1868) Silver v. Ladd 74 U.S. (74 U.S.) 219 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OREGON Syllabus 1. In construing a benevolent statute of the government, made for the benefit of its own citizens and inviting and encouraging them to settle on its distant public lands, the words "single man " and "married man" may, especially if aided by the context and other parts of the statute, be taken in a generic sense. Held accordingly that the fourth section of the Act of Congress of 27 September, 1850, granting, by way of donation, lands in Oregon territory to " every white settler or occupant, . . . American half-breed Indians included," embraced within the term single man an unmarried woman. 2. The fact that the labor of cultivating the land required by the act was not done by the manual labor of the settler is unimportant if it was done by her servant or friends for her benefit and unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Jones v. Andrews - 77 U.S. 327 (1869) U.S. Supreme Court Jones v. Andrews, 77 U.S. 10 Wall. 327 327 (1869) Jones v. Andrews 77 U.S. (10 Wall.) 327 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE Syllabus 1. Allegation of citizenship is sufficiently made when it appears fairly, and in such a way as to leave no room for reasonable doubt, from the bill or declaration, of what states the respective parties are citizens. 2. By the Judiciary Act of 1789, in a case where jurisdiction of the circuit court depended on citizenship, every defendant must have resided or been served with process in the district where the suit was brought; but by the act of 1839 this is not necessary: a nonresident defendant may either voluntarily appear or, if not a necessary party, his appearance may be dispensed with. 3. Appearing by counsel and moving to dismiss the bill for want of jurisdiction and also for want of equity is a waiver of a nonresident's privilege, and amounts to a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Hornthall v. The Collector - 76 U.S. 560 (1869) U.S. Supreme Court Hornthall v. The Collector, 76 U.S. 9 Wall. 560 560 (1869) Hornthall v. The Collector 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 560 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI Syllabus 1. The jurisdiction of suits between citizens of the same state, in internal revenue cases, conferred by the Act of March 2, 1833, "further to provide for the collection of duties on imports," 4 Stat. at Large 632, and the act of June 30, 1864, "to provide internal revenue," &c.;, 13 id. 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. Insurance Company v. Ritchie, 5 Wall. 541, affirmed. 2. Where such citizenship as is necessary to give jurisdiction to the federal courts is not averred, the suit cannot be maintained. 3. Where the circuit court dismisses a bill for want of jurisdiction apparent on its face, the general rule...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Bushnell v. Kennedy - 76 U.S. 387 (1869) U.S. Supreme Court Bushnell v. Kennedy, 76 U.S. 9 Wall. 387 387 (1869) Bushnell v. Kennedy 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 387 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Syllabus 1. It would seem that the restriction in the 11th section of the Judiciary Act, giving original jurisdiction of the circuit courts and which provides that they shall not "have cognizance of any suit to recover the contents of any promissory note or other chose in action in favor of an assignee unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover the said contents if no assignment had been made," applies only to rights of action founded on contracts which contain within themselves some promise or duty to be performed, and not to mere naked rights of action founded on some wrongful act or some neglect of duty to which the law attaches damages. 2. However this may be, the restriction of the 11th section not being found in the language of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Paul v. Virginia - 75 U.S. 168 (1869) U.S. Supreme Court Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 7 Wall. 168 168 (1869) Paul v. Virginia 75 U.S. (7 Wall.) 168 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA Syllabus 1. A state statute which enacts that no insurance company not incorporated under the laws of the State passing the statute shall carry on its business within the State without previously obtaining a license for that purpose, and that it shall not receive such license until it has deposited with the Treasurer of the State bonds of a specified character to an amount varying from thirty to fifty thousand dollars, according to the extent of the capital employed, is not in conflict with that clause of the Constitution of the United States which declares that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States," nor with the clause which declares that Congress shall have power "to regulate commerce with fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Bradley v. Rhines' Administrators - 75 U.S. 393 (1869) U.S. Supreme Court Bradley v. Rhines' Administrators, 75 U.S. 8 Wall. 393 393 (1869) Bradley v. Rhines' Administrators 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 393 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus 1. In a suit brought by the assignee of a chose in action in the federal court on the contract so assigned, it is necessary that plaintiff shall show affirmatively that such action could have been sustained if brought by the original obligee. 2. The burden of proof in such case is on the plaintiff, when the instrument and its assignment are offered under the plea of the general issue. Section eleven of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which defines the jurisdiction of the circuit courts as regards citizenship, after declaring that no person shall be sued in any other district than that of which he is an inhabitant, or in which he shall be found at the service of the writ, adds: "Nor shall any district or circuit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
The Assessors v. Osbornes - 76 U.S. 567 (1869) U.S. Supreme Court The Assessors v. Osbornes, 76 U.S. 9 Wall. 567 567 (1869) The Assessors v. Osbornes 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 567 ON ERROR FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus In which the first two points adjudged in the preceding case, and the points adjudged in Insurance Company v. Ritchie, 5 Wall. 541, are affirmed, including the point adjudged in this last case, to-wit, that where jurisdiction depends wholly on a statute, suits brought during the existence of the statute fall with its repeal. In this case, which came on error from the Circuit Court for the Northern District of New York, the same condition of enactment and repeal of statutes presented itself as in the last case. It is set forth, supra, pp. 560-562. It makes the fundamental part of this case as of that. And the reader who desires to read the report of this case as well as the report of that will please to recall it thence or ref...
Tag this Judgment!