Court : US Supreme Court
White v. Cooke - 61 U.S. 235 (1857) U.S. Supreme Court White v. Cooke, 61 U.S. 20 How. 235 235 (1857) White v. Cooke 61 U.S. (20 How.) 235 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF TEXAS Syllabus In the present case, the land granted in Texas was alleged to be within the empresario contract of De Leon. After proof that many of the documents upon the subject were destroyed in the revolution, the court left it to the jury to decide whether or not the land was thus situated. This ruling was correct. The fact that the surveyor included more land than was called for does not avoid the grant. Whatever the state might do to annul it, third parties have no right to consider it void. A grantee having been compelled to leave Texas, there was no evidence of his voluntary and final abandonment of the country. As there was no evidence, the jury could not express an opinion upon the subject. Nor was there any evidence which would justify the court in leaving it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Spencer v. Lapsley - 61 U.S. 264 (1857) U.S. Supreme Court Spencer v. Lapsley, 61 U.S. 20 How. 264 264 (1857) Spencer v. Lapsley 61 U.S. (20 How.) 264 Syllabus The judge of the District Court of the United States in Texas had power to order the record of a suit in which he was interested to be transmitted to the Circuit Court of the United States in Louisiana. A plea in abatement, filed in connection with pleas in bar, was irregular; and the refusal of the court below to allow the plea to be filed is not subject to the review of this Court. A contract for the sale of eleven leagues of land in Texas, issued before the revolution, and subsequently located within the colonizing grant of Austin and Williams, with their consent, and certified by the secretary of state, was good without the signature of the governor. So far as the land was within the colonizing grant of Robertson, his consent was not necessary, the term of his grant having expired. Where no organization of a colon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. v. Quigley - 62 U.S. 202 (1858) U.S. Supreme Court Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. v. Quigley, 62 U.S. 21 How. 202 202 (1858) Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore Railroad Company v. Quigley 62 U.S. (21 How.) 202 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Syllabus A railroad company is responsible in its corporate capacity for acts done by its agents, either ex contractu or in delicto, in the course of its business and of their employment. It is responsible, therefore, in an action for the publication of a libel. It is within the course of its business and the employment of the president and directors for them to investigate the conduct of their officers and agents and report the result to the stockholders. But a publication of this report must be made under the conditions and responsibilities that attach to individuals under such circumstances. In the absence of any malice or bad faith, a report to the stockh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Covington Drawbridge Company v. Shepherd - 62 U.S. 112 (1858) U.S. Supreme Court Covington Drawbridge Company v. Shepherd, 62 U.S. 21 How. 112 112 (1858) Covington Drawbridge Company v. Shepherd 62 U.S. (21 How.) 112 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF INDIANA Syllabus The decision of this Court in 61 U. S. 20 How. 227 as to what averment in the declaration is sufficient to give jurisdiction to the courts of the United States again affirmed. Where there was a judgment at law against a bridge company under which the tolls were sold in execution, a court of equity has power to cause possession to be taken of the bridge, to appoint a receiver to collect tolls, and pay them into court to the end of discharging the judgment at law. Page 62 U. S. 113 The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court. As the decree of the circuit court was affirmed, and directed to be carried into execution, it may be proper to state what that decre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Pennsylvania v. Ravenel - 62 U.S. 103 (1858) U.S. Supreme Court Pennsylvania v. Ravenel, 62 U.S. 21 How. 103 103 (1858) Pennsylvania v. Ravenel 62 U.S. (21 How.) 103 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus The question of domicile, so far as it depends upon the facts, is one for the jury. But it was proper for the court to instruct the jury what constituted a domicile in law, and to say further that as the husband had his domicile in Pennsylvania at the time of his death, the domicile of the widow remained also in Pennsylvania. Whether or not she afterwards changed it to South Carolina, was a question Page 62 U. S. 104 for the jury, to be decided by the evidence. If they believed this evidence, then the domicile of the widow was in South Carolina. Her acts and declarations, continued for many years, were to be received as evidence of this choice upon her part. [MR. JUSTICE WAYNE DID NOT SIT IN THIS CAUSE] This was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Frederickson v. Louisiana - 64 U.S. 445 (1859) U.S. Supreme Court Frederickson v. Louisiana, 64 U.S. 23 How. 445 445 (1859) Frederickson v. Louisiana 64 U.S. (23 How.) 445 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA Syllabus The following is an article of a treaty concluded between the King of Wurtemberg and the United States in 1844, 8 Stat. 588 "The citizens or subjects of each of the contracting parties shall have power to dispose of their personal property within the states of the other by testament, donation, or otherwise, and their heirs, legatees, and donees, being citizens or subjects of the other contracting party, shall succeed to their said personal property and may take possession thereof, either by themselves, or by others acting for them, and dispose of the same at their pleasure, paying such duties only as the inhabitants of the country where said property lies shall be liable to pay in like cases." This article does not include the case of a citizen ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Eberly v. Moore - 65 U.S. 147 (1860) U.S. Supreme Court Eberly v. Moore, 65 U.S. 24 How. 147 147 (1860) Eberly v. Moore 65 U.S. (24 How.) 147 ERROR FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Syllabus After the defendants had put in a plea in bar, they moved the court for leave to withdraw the plea and to plead in abatement that the plaintiffs had alleged themselves to be citizens of another state, but were in reality the citizens of the same state with themselves, in consequence of which the district court of the United States had not jurisdiction of the case. The court allowed the motion and the plea in abatement to be filed. Being satisfied by the verdict of a jury that the allegation of the plea was true, the petition of the plaintiffs was dismissed. Page 65 U. S. 148 In this the district court was right. The jurisdiction has been conferred by acts of Congress upon the courts of the United States so to supervise the various steps in a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Fitch v. Creighton - 65 U.S. 159 (1860) U.S. Supreme Court Fitch v. Creighton, 65 U.S. 24 How. 159 159 (1860) Fitch v. Creighton 65 U.S. (24 How.) 159 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Syllabus The statutes of Ohio give to the local authorities of cities and incorporated villages power to make various improvements in streets &c.;, and to assess the proportionate expense thereof upon the lots "fronting thereon, which is declared to be a lien upon the property." The city Council of Toledo directed certain improvements to be made, and contracted with two persons, one of whom purchased the right of the other to do the work, and authorized them to collect the amounts due upon the assessments. The contractor who executed the work, and who was a citizen of another state, filed a bill upon the equity side of the circuit court to enforce this lien. The court had jurisdiction of the case. The courts of the United States have jurisdi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Ohio & Mississippi Railroad Company v. Wheeler - 66 U.S. 286 (1861) U.S. Supreme Court Ohio & Mississippi Railroad Company v. Wheeler, 66 U.S. 1 Black 286 286 (1861) Ohio & Mississippi Railroad Company v. Wheeler 66 U.S. (1 Black) 286 CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION BETWEEN JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF INDIANA Syllabus 1. A corporation exists only in contemplation of law, and by force of law, and can have no legal existence beyond the bounds of the sovereignty by which it is created. It must dwell in the place of its creation. 2. A corporation is not a citizen within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and cannot maintain a suit in a court of the United States against the citizen of a different state from that by which it was chartered unless the persons who compose the corporate body are all citizens of that state. 3. In such case, they may sue by their corporate name, averring the citizenship of all the members, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Mississippi & Missouri Railroad Company v. Ward - 67 U.S. 485 (1862) U.S. Supreme Court Mississippi & Missouri Railroad Company v. Ward, 67 U.S. 2 Black 485 485 (1862) Mississippi & Missouri Railroad Company v. Ward 67 U.S. (2 Black) 485 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF IOWA Syllabus l. A public nuisance may be abated on a bill in equity brought by a private party who has suffered special damage. 2. It is necessary for the plaintiff in such a bill to show that he has sustained and is still sustaining individual injury by the nuisance. 3. But where the bill is brought in a federal court, it is not necessary to show that the plaintiff's damage amounts to the sum which is required to give the courts of the United States jurisdiction. 4. The jurisdiction is tested by the value of the object to be gained by the bill, and that object is the removal of the nuisance. 5. The private party, though nominally suing on his own account, acts rather...
Tag this Judgment!