Court : US Supreme Court
Schick v. United States - 195 U.S. 65 (1904) U.S. Supreme Court Schick v. United States, 195 U.S. 65 (1904) Schick v. United States Nos. 222-223 Argued December 2, 1903 Decided May 31, 1904 195 U.S. 65 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus A written waiver of a jury by a defendant in an action brought by the United States to recover a penalty of fifty dollars under 11 of the act of 1886 as amended by the Act of May 9, 1902, is not in conflict with the laws and Constitution of the United States, and does not invalidate the judgment. McCray v. United States, ante, p. 195 U. S. 27 , followed as to constitutionality of the oleomargarine legislation. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Page 195 U. S. 66 MR. JUSTICE BREWER delivered the opinion of the Court. The constitutionality of the oleomargarine legislation having Page 195 U. S. 67 been settled in McCray v. United States, just decided, there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Corkran Oil & Dev. Co. v. Arnaudet - 199 U.S. 182 (1905) U.S. Supreme Court Corkran Oil & Dev. Co. v. Arnaudet, 199 U.S. 182 (1905) Corkran Oil and Development Company v. Arnaudet No. 22 Argued October 24, 25, 1905 Decided November 13, 1905 199 U.S. 182 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA Syllabus A petition for rehearing to the supreme court of the state is too late to raise federal questions in that court unless the petition is entertained and the point passed on. Although title may be claimed in the state court under a federal statute, if the decision of that court rest on a ground independent of that statute, and involving no federal question, the writ of error will be dismissed. This was a petitory action commenced by the Corkran Oil & Development Company in the Eighteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Acadia, Louisiana, on the sixth day of December, A.D. 1901, against Laurent Arnaudet and others to recover possession of certain real prop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Royal Ins. Co. v. Miller - 199 U.S. 353 (1905) U.S. Supreme Court Royal Ins. Co. v. Miller, 199 U.S. 353 (1905) Royal Insurance Company v. Miller No. 7 Argued October 17-18, 1905 Decided November 27, 1905 199 U.S. 353 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF PORTO RICO Syllabus The owner of an estate in Porto Rico mortgaged the property to a bank, the mortgage being granted by notarial act describing the property and the fruits thereof and declaring that it was all planted in cane except certain specified parts, including the sugar manufactory, and that the loan secured was to enable the borrower to develop and keep the plantation; as additional collateral, the owner delivered to the bank a policy of fire insurance on "stock of sugar and molasses deposited in the sugar manufactory on the estate," which was not to take effect, however, until several months thereafter; after the policy took effect and during its life, the sugar house and stock was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Louisiana v. Mississippi - 202 U.S. 1 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court Louisiana v. Mississippi, 202 U.S. 1 (1906) Louisiana v. Mississippi No. 11, Original Argued October 10, 11, 12, 1905 Decided March 5, 1906 202 U.S. 1 I N EQUITY Syllabus The act of Congress admitting Louisiana having given that state all islands within three leagues of her coast, and the subsequent act of Congress admitting Mississippi having purported to give that state all islands within six leagues of her shore, and some islands within nine miles of the Louisiana coast being also within eighteen miles of the Mississippi shore, although the apparent inconsistency is reconcilable, the basis of a boundary controversy involving to each state pecuniary values of magnitude, exists, and such a controversy between the two states in their sovereign capacity as states and having a boundary line separating them justifies the exercise of the original jurisdiction of this Court. As the act admitting Mississippi was pas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Cabrera v. American Colonial Bank - 214 U.S. 224 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court Cabrera v. American Colonial Bank, 214 U.S. 224 (1909) Cabrera v. American Colonial Bank No. 136 Submitted April 7, 1909 Decided May 24, 1909 214 U.S. 224 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PORTO RICO Syllabus The provisions of the Spanish Civil Code, which was in force in Porto Rico until 1902, to the effect that the obligations of a contract must be complied with according to their terms and that evidence cannot be introduced to vary them are practically the same as the principles of the common law, and are subject to similar well recognized exceptions. The face of an instrument is not always conclusive of its purpose; and, in equity, extrinsic evidence is admissible to show that a conveyance, absolute in form, is intended as security, and in this case, testimony addressed to the consideration of the bill of sale, and showing that, although on its face the vendee agreed to giv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States - 221 U.S. 1 (1911) U.S. Supreme Court Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1910) Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States Argued March 14, 15, 16, 1910 Restored to docket for reargument April 11, 1910 Reargued January 12, 13, 16, 17, 1911 Decided May 15, 1911 221 U.S. 1 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI Syllabus The Anti-Trust Act of July 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209, should be construed in the light of reason; and, as so construed, it prohibits all contracts and combination which amount to an unreasonable or undue restraint of trade in interstate commerce. The combination of the defendants in this case is an unreasonable and undue restraint of trade in petroleum and its products moving in interstate commerce, and falls within the prohibitions of the act as so construed. Where one of the defendants in a suit, brought by the Government in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Slocum v. New York Life Ins. Co. - 228 U.S. 364 (1913) U.S. Supreme Court Slocum v. New York Life Ins. Co., 228 U.S. 364 (1913) Slocum v. New York Life Insurance Company No. 20. Argued April 26, 1912 Decided April 21, 1913 228 U.S. 364 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Syllabus Where a life insurance policy plainly provides for payment of the stipulated premium within a specified period of grace after the due day and as plainly excludes any idea of partial payments distributed between the premium dates, the insured gains nothing by giving an agent a portion of the premium in the absence of authority given him by the company to accept it. One dealing with an agent knowing that his authority is limited and that his acts transcend the limits cannot hold the principal. Where there is a method for extending payment of premiums which is known to the insured, who also knows that the agent has no power to extend on any other terms, the insured takes ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
City & County of Denver v. New York Trust Co. - 229 U.S. 123 (1913) U.S. Supreme Court City & County of Denver v. New York Trust Co., 229 U.S. 123 (1913) City and County of Denver v. New York Trust Company Nos. 642, 643 Argued October 28, 29, 1912 Decided May 26, 1913 229 U.S. 123 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The exceptional power of this Court to review, upon certiorari, decisions of the circuit court of appeals on an appeal from an interlocutory order is intended to be, and is, sparingly exercised; that power does exist, however, in a case where no appeal lies from the final decision of that court. While the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court in a case where diverse citizenship exists may also rest upon the fact that the case is one arising under the Constitution of the United States, in which case there is an appeal from the judgment of the circuit court of appeals, that is not the case where the alleged infractions of the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Boston & Maine R. Co. v. Hooker - 233 U.S. 97 (1914) U.S. Supreme Court Boston & Maine R. Co. v. Hooker, 233 U.S. 97 (1914) Boston & Maine Railroad Company v. Hooker No. 121 Argued December 10, 11, 1913 Decided April 6, 1914 233 U.S. 97 ERROR TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus Congress, by the Hepburn Act and the Carmack Amendment in 1906, has regulated the subject of interstate transportation of property by federal law to the exclusion of the states to control it by their own policy or legislation. Pennsylvania v. Hughes, 191 U. S. 477 , distinguished, having been decided prior to the passage of the Hepburn Act. Page 233 U. S. 98 Knowledge of the shipper that the rate is based on value is to be presumed from the terms of the bill of lading and of the published schedules filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the effect of so filing the schedules makes the published rates binding upon shipper and carrier alike. The limitation of l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Block v. Hirsch - 256 U.S. 135 (1921) U.S. Supreme Court Block v. Hirsch, 256 U.S. 135 (1921) Block v. Hirsch No. 640 Argued March 3, 1921 Decided April 18, 1921 256 U.S. 135 ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus The Act of October 22, 1919, c. 80, Title II, 41 Stat. 297, created a commission with power, upon notice and hearing, to determine whether the rent, service and other terms and conditions of the use and occupancy of apartments, hotels and other rental property in the District of Columbia, were fair and reasonable and, if found otherwise, to fix fair and reasonable rents, etc., in lieu; it provided that a tenant's right of occupancy should, at his option, continue, notwithstanding the expiration of his term, subject to regulation by the commission, so long as he paid the rent and performed the conditions fixed by his lease or as modified by the commission; reserved, however, to the owner his right to possession for actual bona fide occu...
Tag this Judgment!