Court : US Supreme Court
Sparf and Hansen v. United States - 156 U.S. 51 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court Sparf and Hansen v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895) Sparf and Hansen v. United States No. 613 Submitted March 5, 1894 Decided January 21, 1895 156 U.S. 51 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus If one of two persons accused of having together committed the crime of murder makes a voluntary confession in the presence of the other under such circumstances that he would naturally have contradicted it if he did not assent, the confession is admissible in evidence against both. If two persons are indicted and tried jointly for murder, declarations of one made after the killing and in the absence of the other tending to prove the guilt of both are admissible in evidence against the one making the declarations, but not against the other. An objection to the admissibility of such evidence, made at the trial in the name of both defendants, on the ge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. - 157 U.S. 429 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company No. 898 Argued March 7, 8. 11, 12, 13, 1895 Decided April 8, 1895. 157 U.S. 429 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus A court of equity has jurisdiction to prevent a threatened breach of trust in the misapplication or diversion of the funds of a corporation by illegal payments out of its capital or profits. Such a bill being filed by a stockholder to prevent a trust company from voluntarily making returns for the imposition and payment of a tax claimed to be unconstitutional, and on the further ground of threatened multiplicity of suits and irreparable injury, and the objection of adequate remedy at law not having been raised below or in this court, and the question of jurisdiction having been waived by the United States so far as it was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
The Oregon - 158 U.S. 186 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court The Oregon, 158 U.S. 186 (1895) The Oregon Nos. 270, 273 Argued April 8-9, 1895 Decided May 6, 1895 158 U.S. 186 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON Syllabus A steamer steaming in a dark night at the rate of fifteen miles an hour through a narrow inland channel where a local pilot is put in charge of it, should have a lookout stationed on either bow, and the master should be on deck; but a failure to comply with these requirements will not, in Page 158 U. S. 187 case of collision, suffice to condemn the steamer unless there be proof that the failure contributed to the collision. From the facts as stated by the court in the statement of facts and in the opinion, it is held that there can be no doubt that the collision between the Oregon and the Clan Mackenzie was attributable to the inefficiency of the pilot and lookout of the Oregon. Where one vessel, clearly shown to hav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Hilton v. Guyot - 159 U.S. 113 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895) Hilton v. Guyot Nos. 130, 34 Argued April 10, 1894 Decided June 3, 1895 159 U.S. 113 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus A citizen and resident of this country who has his principal place of business here but has an agent in a foreign country and is accustomed to purchase and store large quantities of goods there, and, in a suit brought against him by a citizen and in a court of that country, appears and defends with the sole object of preventing his property within the jurisdiction, but not in the custody of that court, from being taken in satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered against him there cannot, in an action brought against him in this country upon such a judgment, impeach it for want of jurisdiction of his person. The admission at the trial in a court of a foreign country, according to its law and pra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Richmond Nervine Co. v. Richmond - 159 U.S. 293 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court Richmond Nervine Co. v. Richmond, 159 U.S. 293 (1895) Richmond Nervine Co. v. Richmond No. 59 Argued April 30, May 1, 1895 Decided October 21, 1895 159 U.S. 293 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus The fact that a trademark bears the name and portrait of the person in whose name it is registered does not render it unassignable to another. On the facts, this Court reverses the decree of the court below. This was a bill in equity filed by the Dr. S. A. Richmond Nervine Company, a Missouri corporation, against Samuel A. Richmond, the founder of the corporation and a citizen of Illinois, to enjoin the use of a certain trademark, and to recover damages and profits for the unlawful use of the same. The facts of the case were substantially as follows: the defendant Richmond, prior to December, 1877, being engaged at St. Joseph, Missouri, in the b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Geer v. Connecticut - 161 U.S. 519 (1896) U.S. Supreme Court Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896) Geer v. Connecticut No. 87 Argued November 22, 1895 Decided March 2, 1896 161 U.S. 519 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT Syllabus The provision in the General Statutes of Connecticut (Revision of 1888, 2546) that "no person shall at any time kill any woodcock, rued grouse or quail for the purpose of conveying the same beyond the limits of this State, or shall transport or have in possession, with intent to procure the transportation beyond said limits, any of such birds killed within this State" is legislation which it is within the constitution power of the legislature of the state to enact. The General Statutes of the State of Connecticut provide (Sec. 2530, Revision 1888): "Every person who shall buy, sell, expose for sale, or have in his possession for the purpose, or who shall hunt, pursue, kill, destroy or attempt to kill any woodco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Central Pacific R. Co. v. California - 162 U.S. 91 (1896) U.S. Supreme Court Central Pacific R. Co. v. California, 162 U.S. 91 (1896) Central Pacific Railroad Company v. California No. 559 Argued January 15-16, 1896 Decided March 18, 1896 162 U.S. 91 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus The Central Pacific Railroad Company, being required by the laws of California to make returns of its property to the Board of Equalization for purposes of taxation, made a verified statement in which, among other things, it was said: "The value of the franchise and entire roadway, roadbed, and rails within this state is $12,273,785." The Board of Equalization determined that the actual value of the franchises, roadway, roadbed, rails, and rolling stock of the company within the state at that time was $18,000,000. The company not having paid the taxes assessed on this valuation, this action was brought by the state to recover them. Held: (1) That the presumption w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Singer Mfg. Co. v. June Mfg. Co. - 163 U.S. 169 (1896) U.S. Supreme Court Singer Mfg. Co. v. June Mfg. Co., 163 U.S. 169 (1896) Singer Manufacturing Company v. June Manufacturing Company No. 6 Argued October 16-17, 1894 Decided May 18, 1896 163 U.S. 169 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus The Singer machines were covered by patents, some fundamental, some accessory, whereby there was given to them a distinctive character and form which caused them to be known as the Singer machines, as deviating and separable from the form and character of machines made by other manufacturers. The word "Singer" was adopted by Singer & Co. or the Singer Manufacturing Company as designative of their distinctive style of machines, rather than as solely indicating the origin of manufacture. The patents which covered them gave to the manufacturers of the Singer sewing machines a substantial monopoly whereby the name "Singer" came to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. - 163 U.S. 564 (1896) U.S. Supreme Court Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co., 163 U.S. 564 (1896) Union Pacific Railway Company v. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company Nos. 157-158 Argued April 21-22, 1896 Decided May 25, 1896 163 U.S. 564 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Railroad corporations possess the powers which are expressly conferred by their charters, together with such powers as are fairly incidental thereto, and they cannot, except with the consent of the state, disable themselves from the discharge of the functions, duties, and obligations which they have assumed. The general rule is that a contract by which a railroad company renders itself incapable of performing its duties to the public or attempts to absolve itself from those obligations without the consent of the state, Page 163 U. S. 565 or a contract made by a corporation beyond the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago - 166 U.S. 226 (1897) U.S. Supreme Court Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897) Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago No. 129 Argued November 6, 9, 1896 Decided March 1, 1897 166 U.S. 226 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS This court has authority to reexamine the final judgment of the highest court of a State, rendered in a proceeding to condemn private property for public use, in which, after verdict, a defendant assigned as a ground for new trial that the statute under which the case was instituted and the proceedings under it were in violation of the clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbidding a State to deprive any person of property without due process of law, and which ground of objection was repeated in the highest court of the State, provided the judgment of the court, by its necessary operation, was adverse to the claim of Federal right and could not rest upon any independent groun...
Tag this Judgment!