Court : US Supreme Court
Gwin v. Breedlove - 43 U.S. 29 (1844) U.S. Supreme Court Gwin v. Breedlove, 43 U.S. 2 How. 29 29 (1844) Gwin v. Breedlove 43 U.S. (2 How.) 29 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI Syllabus A statute of the State of Mississippi, passed on 15 February, 1828, provided that if a sheriff should fail to pay over to a plaintiff money collected by execution, the amount collected, with 25 percent damages and 8 percent interest, might be recovered against such sheriff and his sureties, by motion before the court to which such execution was returnable. A marshal and his sureties cannot be proceeded against jointly in this summary way, but they must be sued as directed by the act of Congress. But the marshal himself was always liable to an attachment under which he could be compelled to bring the money into court, and by the Process Act of Congress of May, 1828, was also liable, in Mississippi, to have a judgment entered against himself...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Rogers - 45 U.S. 567 (1846) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Rogers, 45 U.S. 4 How. 567 567 (1846) United States v. Rogers 45 U.S. (4 How.) 567 ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus The United States has adopted the principle originally established by European nations -- namely that the aboriginal tribes of Indians in North America are not regarded as the owners of the territories which they respectively occupied. Their country was divided and parceled out as if it had been vacant and unoccupied land. If the propriety of exercising this power were now an open question, it would be one for the lawmaking and political department of the government, and not the judicial. The Indian tribes residing within the territorial limits of the United States are subject to their authority, and where the country occupied by them is not within the limits of any one of the states, Congress may, by law, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Shelton v. Tiffin - 47 U.S. 163 (1848) U.S. Supreme Court Shelton v. Tiffin, 47 U.S. 6 How. 163 163 (1848) Shelton v. Tiffin 47 U.S. (6 How.) 163 APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR EAST LOUISIANA Syllabus Where an individual has resided in a state for a considerable time, being engaged in the prosecution of business, he may well be presumed to be a citizen of such state unless the contrary appears. And this principle is strengthened when the individual lives on a plantation and cultivates it with a large force, claiming and improving the property as his own. On a change of domicile from one state to another, citizenship may depend upon the intention of the individual. But this intention may be own more satisfactorily by acts than declarations. An exercise of the right of suffrage is conclusive upon the subject, but acquiring a right of suffrage, accompanied by acts which show a permanent location, unexplained, may be sufficient. The facts that the party and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Gwin v. Barton - 47 U.S. 7 (1848) U.S. Supreme Court Gwin v. Barton, 47 U.S. 6 How. 7 7 (1848) Gwin v. Barton 47 U.S. (6 How.) 7 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI Syllabus The decision of this Court in the case of Gwin v. Breedlove, 2 How. 29, reviewed and confirmed, viz., That under a statute of Mississippi relating to sheriffs, a summary process against a marshal might be resorted to, in order to enforce the payment of a debt, interest, and costs, for which he was liable by reason of his default; that the courts of the United States could not enforce the payment of a penalty imposed by the state laws in addition to the money due on the execution; that a marshal and his sureties could not be proceeded against jointly in this summary way, but they must be sued as directed by the act of Congress. Any excess of interest awarded over and above the legal rate is a penalty, and comes within the above rule. At May term, 18...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Tyler v. Hand - 48 U.S. 573 (1849) U.S. Supreme Court Tyler v. Hand, 48 U.S. 7 How. 573 573 (1849) Tyler v. Hand 48 U.S. (7 How.) 573 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI Syllabus A general demurrer by the defendant, assigning reasons why the plaintiff should not recover must be considered and treated as a special demurrer, which is an objection for defects in form. In this case, none of the reasons are valid as objections to a matter of form, but the Court nevertheless will examine them as if brought forward to sustain a general demurrer. Where bonds were given to the President of the United States and his successors in office for the use of the orphan children of certain Indians, and the declaration so averred, it was not a good cause of demurrer to allege that they were taken without authority of law. They were valid instruments, though voluntarily given and not prescribed by law, and as the demurrer admitted the facts ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Passenger Cases - 48 U.S. 283 (1849) U.S. Supreme Court Passenger Cases, 48 U.S. 7 How. 283 283 (1849) Passenger Cases 48 U.S. (7 How.) 283 ERROR TO THE COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF IMPEACHMENTS AND CORRECTION OF ERRORS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus Statutes of the states of New York and Massachusetts, imposing taxes upon alien passengers arriving in the ports of those states declared to be contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States, and therefore null and void. Inasmuch as there was no opinion of the Court as a Court, the reporter refers the reader to the opinions of the judges for an explanation of the statutes and the points in which they conflicted with the Constitution and laws of the United States. These were kindred cases, and were argued together. They were both brought up to this Court by writs of error issued under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act, the case of Smith v. Turner being brought...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Smith v. Kernochen - 48 U.S. 198 (1849) U.S. Supreme Court Smith v. Kernochen, 48 U.S. 7 How. 198 198 (1849) Smith v. Kernochen 48 U.S. (7 How.) 198 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA Syllabus When a mortgagor and mortgagee are citizens of the same state, and the mortgagee assigns the mortgage to a citizen of another state for the purpose of throwing the case into the circuit court, it is necessary, in order to divest the court of jurisdiction, to bring home to the assignee a knowledge of this motive and purpose. Till then, he must be considered an innocent purchaser without notice. If the assignment was only fictitious, then the suit would in fact be between two citizens of the same state, over which the court would have no jurisdiction. The question of jurisdiction, in such a case, should have been raised by a plea in abatement. Upon the trial of the merits, it was too late. A former suit in chancery between t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Kennedy v. Bank of Georgia - 49 U.S. 586 (1850) U.S. Supreme Court Kennedy v. Bank of Georgia, 49 U.S. 8 How. 586 586 (1850) Kennedy v. Bank of Georgia 49 U.S. (8 How.) 586 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA Syllabus Some of the distinctions stated between bills of review, of revivor, and supplemental and original bills in chancery. This Court, as an appellate court, has the power to allow amendments to be made to the record before it, although the general practice has been to remand the case to the circuit court for that purpose. When a cause is brought before this Court on a division in opinion by the judges of the circuit court, the points certified only are before it. The cause should remain on the docket of the circuit court, and at their discretion may be prosecuted. If the jurisdiction of a circuit court be not shown in the proceedings in the case, its judgment is erroneous, and liable to be reversed; but it is not an absol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Newton v. Stebbins - 51 U.S. 586 (1850) U.S. Supreme Court Newton v. Stebbins, 51 U.S. 10 How. 586 586 (1850) Newton v. Stebbins 51 U.S. (10 How.) 586 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus Where a sailing vessel was descending the Hudson River with but a trifling wind and chiefly by the force of the current, and came into collision with a steamer ascending the river, the question in the case was whether or not the accident happened, notwithstanding every proper precautionary measure had been taken on the part of the steamboat to pass the sloop in safety, in consequence of an improper movement of that vessel by the mismanagement and unskillfulness of the persons in charge of her. If the sailing vessel kept her course, it was the duty of the steamboat to avoid her. The evidence showing that the steamer did not take Page 51 U. S. 587 proper precautionary measures to avoid the sloop while endeavoring to pass her, the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Mitchell v. Harmony - 54 U.S. 115 (1851) U.S. Supreme Court Mitchell v. Harmony, 54 U.S. 13 How. 115 115 (1851) Mitchell v. Harmony 54 U.S. (13 How.) 115 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus In some of the states, it is the practice for the court to express its opinion upon facts in a charge to the jury. In these states, it is not improper for the circuit court of the United States to follow the same practice. During the war between the United States and Mexico, where a trader went into the adjoining Mexican provinces which were in possession of the military authorities of the United States for the purpose of carrying on a trade with the inhabitants which was sanctioned by the executive branch of the government and also by the commanding military officer, it was improper for an officer of the United States to seize the property upon the ground of trading with the enemy. Private property may be taken by a military comm...
Tag this Judgment!