Court : US Supreme Court
Atkins v. Disintegrating Company - 85 U.S. 272 (1873) U.S. Supreme Court Atkins v. Disintegrating Company, 85 U.S. 18 Wall. 272 272 (1873) Atkins v. Disintegrating Company 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 272 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus 1. An entry on the record of an admiralty case that, on the return of a process of attachment, Mr. B. "appears for the respondent, and has a week to perfect an appearance and to answer" is an appearance, the entry being followed by the execution by the respondent or his agents of different bonds, reciting "that an appearance in the case had been entered." 2. A district court of the United States, when acting as a court of admiralty, can obtain jurisdiction to proceed in personam against an inhabitant of the United States not residing within the district (within which terms a corporation incorporated by a state not within the district is meant to be included), by attachment of the goods or property of such in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Mitchell v. Tilghman - 86 U.S. 287 (1873) U.S. Supreme Court Mitchell v. Tilghman, 86 U.S. 19 Wall. 287 287 (1873) Mitchell v. Tilghman 86 U.S. (19 Wall.) 287 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus What R. A. Tilghman, of Philadelphia, claimed as his invention under the letters patent granted to him of January 9, 1854, was the process of manufacturing fat acids and glycerin from fatty or oily substances by the action of water at a high temperature and pressure. Two conditions, viz., that the heating vessel must be kept entirely full of the mixture of fat and water and that no steam or air must be allowed to accumulate in the vessel employed to impart the heat, were material and indispensable conditions of Tilghman's patented method. The claim of the patentee must be limited to the specific method or means of applying highly heated water under pressure pointed out in the specification; and although the claim is on its face broader than...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
The Confiscation Cases - 87 U.S. 92 (1873) U.S. Supreme Court The Confiscation Cases, 87 U.S. 20 Wall. 92 92 (1873) The Confiscation Cases 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 92 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Syllabus 1. An information in rem under the fifth, sixth, and seventh sections of the Confiscation Act of July 17, 1862, for the confiscation of the real estate of a person falling within the provisions of those sections -- such information not being in any sense a criminal proceeding -- is not, after default made and entered and after a final judgment of condemnation, to be held fatally defective because it has averred that the property Page 87 U. S. 93 seized belonged to someone who was one OR another of the persons referred to in the fifth and sixth sections of the act (thus making its allegations in the alternative), and has not averred it otherwise. 2. When an information avers that on a day named a seizure was made by the marshal under written authorit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Cornett v. Williams - 87 U.S. 226 (1873) U.S. Supreme Court Cornett v. Williams, 87 U.S. 20 Wall. 226 226 (1873) Cornett v. Williams 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 226 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Syllabus 1. Under the Act of July 2, 1864, providing that in civil actions in courts of the United States there shall be no exclusion of any witness "because he is a party to or interested in the issue tried," witnesses may, other things allowing, testify (without any order of court) by deposition. And if not satisfied with a deposition which they have given, have a right, without order of court, to give a second one. 2. What evidence so far tended to prove, on the part of a person who, during the late rebellion, removed his slaves from loyal parts of the country to parts in rebellion, a purpose to sell them in these last, and justified a charge on an assumption of possibility that the jury might find the purpose to have existed. This matter passed upon. 3. When...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Murdock v. Memphis - 87 U.S. 590 (1874) U.S. Supreme Court Murdock v. Memphis, 87 U.S. 20 Wall. 590 590 (1874) Murdock v. Memphis 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 590 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE Syllabus 1. The second section of the Act of Feb. 5, 1867, 14 Stat. at Large 385, "to amend" the Judiciary Act of 1789, operates as a repeal of the twenty-fifth section of that act, and the Act of 1867, as it is now found in the Revised Statutes of the United States, 709, is the sole law governing the removal of causes from state courts to this Court for review, and has been since its enactment in 1867. 2. Congress did not intend, by omitting in this statute the restrictive clause at the close of the twenty-fifth section of the Act of 1789 (limiting the Supreme Court to the consideration of federal questions in cases so removed) to enact affirmatively that the Court should consider all other questions involved in the case that might be necessary to a final judgment or decree. 3. Nor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Ambler v. Whipple - 87 U.S. 546 (1874) U.S. Supreme Court Ambler v. Whipple, 87 U.S. 20 Wall. 546 546 (1874) Ambler v. Whipple 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 546 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus 1. Where an instrument prepared by one partner for signature by his co-partner, with whom he has fallen out and quarreled, contains mutual releases and assignments -- each being the consideration of the other -- it should, in order to be binding, be signed by both parties. The fact that the partner who did not prepare it has taken without objection from the other an unsigned counterpart after this other partner had signed the first counterpart, and left it in the hands of a third person to be delivered only when the unsigned counterpart was signed and delivered, does not give effect to the release. 2. Though bad character, drunkenness, and dishonesty on the part of one partner may be good grounds for dissolving a partnership on the application of the other -- thi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Edwards v. Elliott - 88 U.S. 532 (1874) U.S. Supreme Court Edwards v. Elliott, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 532 532 (1874) Edwards v. Elliott 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 532 ERROR TO THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Syllabus 1. Where the record before the court on a case from a state court shows a declaration, pleas to it, issue on them, verdict on those issues, and judgment on the verdict, without allusion to any demurrer, the court will not refer to opinions in books of printed reports of the state court to contradict the record and to show that there was a demurrer to the declaration and that judgment overruling the demurrer was given. [It was stated in this case by counsel that the demurrer after judgment against it had been withdrawn.] 2. Where a record brought regularly to this Court on a writ of error and appeal bond which operate as a supersedeas shows a judgment quite intelligible and possible, and where a return to a certiorari issued, without prejudice, long a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
The Lottawanna - 88 U.S. 558 (1874) U.S. Supreme Court The Lottawanna, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 558 558 (1874) 1 Wall. 558 The Lottawanna 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 558 APPEAL IN ADMIRALTY FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Syllabus 1. Whilst the general maritime law is the basis of the maritime law of the United States, as well as of other countries, it is only so far operative in this or any country as it is adopted by the laws and usages thereof. It has no inherent force of its own. 2. In particular matters, especially such as approach a merely municipal character, the received maritime law may differ in different countries without affecting the general integrity of the system as a harmonious whole. 3. The general system of maritime law which was familiar to the lawyers and statesmen of this country when the Constitution was adopted was intended and referred to when it was declared in that instrument that the judicial power of the United States shall extend "to all cas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Woodson v. Murdock - 89 U.S. 351 (1874) U.S. Supreme Court Woodson v. Murdock, 89 U.S. 22 Wall. 351 351 (1874) Woodson v. Murdock 89 U.S. (22 Wall.) 351 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI Syllabus 1. The provision of the Constitution of Missouri which ordains "The General Assembly shall have no power, for any purpose whatever, to release the lien held by the state upon any railroad --" a provision having reference to the statutory liens held by the state on different railroads for the credit of the state, lent to them by the issue of state bonds, the principal and interest of which the railroad companies were to pay -- was not meant, in case of a failure by the railroad companies, to prevent the state from making a compromise with any railroad company of any debt due to it or to become due, and on the compromise's being effected, to release the lien. 2. This view of the meaning of the clause is not altered by reading it in the light of the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Scholey v. Rew - 90 U.S. 331 (1874) U.S. Supreme Court Scholey v. Rew, 90 U.S. 23 Wall. 331 331 (1874) Scholey v. Rew 90 U.S. (23 Wall.) 331 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus 1. The "succession tax," imposed by the acts of June 30th, 1804, and July 13th, 1866, on every "devolution of title to any real estate," was not a "direct tax" within the meaning of the Constitution, but an "impost or excise," and was constitutional and valid. 2. A devise of an equitable interest in real estate, in which personal property had been invested by the trustee with the assent of the devisor, before the making of the will, was a devolution of real estate within the meaning of the Acts of June 30, 1864, and July 13, 1860, and the devisee is liable to the succession tax imposed thereby in respect of it if he has received its value, although in proceedings for partition he has had assigned to him only personal property. 3. An alien to whom a devise of an in...
Tag this Judgment!