Court : US Supreme Court
Town of Pawlet v. Clark - 13 U.S. 292 (1815) U.S. Supreme Court Town of Pawlet v. Clark, 13 U.S. 9 Cranch 292 292 (1815) Town of Pawlet v. Clark 13 U.S. (9 Cranch) 292 ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION AMONG THE JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Syllabus This Court has jurisdiction, where one party claims land under a grant from the State of New Hampshire and the other under a grant from the State of Vermont, although at the time of the first grant Vermont was a part of New Hampshire. A grant of a tract of land in equal shares to sixty-three persons, to be divided amongst them into sixty-eight equal shares, with a specific appropriation of five shares, conveys only a sixty-eighth part to each person. If one of the shares be declared to be "for a glebe for the Church of England as by law established," that share is not holden in trust by the grantees, nor is it a condition annexed to their rights or shares. The Church of England is not a body corpora...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
The Mary - 13 U.S. 126 (1815) U.S. Supreme Court The Mary, 13 U.S. 9 Cranch 126 126 (1815) The Mary 13 U.S. (9 Cranch) 126 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND Syllabus The condemnation of a vessel as enemy's property for want of a claim cannot prejudice the claim for her cargo, but it is still competent for the claimant of the cargo to controvert the fact that the vessel was enemy's property so far as that fact could prejudice his claim. One claimant cannot be injured by the contumacy of another. The holder of a bottomry bond cannot claim in a court of prize. An American vessel sailing from England in August, 1812, in consequence of the repeal of the British orders in council, and compelled by dangers of the seas to put into Ireland, where she was necessarily detained until April, 1813, when she sailed again for the United States under the protection of a British license, being captured on the voyage by an American privateer, was protected by the P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Prigg v. Pennsylvania - 41 U.S. 539 (1842) U.S. Supreme Court Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 16 Pet. 539 539 (1842) Prigg v. Pennsylvania 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 539 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus A writ of error to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, brought under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, to revise the judgment of that Court on a case involving the construction of the Constitution and laws of the United States. Edward Prigg, a citizen of the State of Maryland, was indicted for kidnapping in the Court of Oyer and Terminer of York County, Pennsylvania, for having forcibly taken and carried away from that county to the State of Maryland a negro woman named Margaret Morgan with the design and intention of her being held, sold, and disposed of as a slave for life, contrary to a statute of Pennsylvania passed on the twenty-sixth day of March, 1826. Edward Prigg pleaded not guilty, and the jury found a special verdict on which judgment was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Miner's Bank of Dubuque v. Iowa - 53 U.S. 1 (1851) U.S. Supreme Court Miner's Bank of Dubuque v. Iowa, 53 U.S. 12 How. 1 1 (1851) Miner's Bank of Dubuque v. Iowa 53 U.S. (12 How.) 1 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IOWA Syllabus Where a bank was chartered and its charter repealed by the legislature of a territory, the question of the validity of the repealing act cannot be brought before this Court under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act. The power of review is confined by that section to certain laws passed by states, and does not extend to those passed by territorial legislatures. At the November term, 1845, of the District Court of Dubuque County, in the Territory of Iowa, the district Attorney of the United States filed the following information: "James Grant, District Prosecutor of the third Judicial District, who prosecutes for the United States, on leave granted, comes into said District Court of Dubuque County, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Workman - 68 U.S. 745 (1863) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Workman, 68 U.S. 1 Wall. 745 745 (1863) United States v. Workman 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 745 APPEAL BY THE UNITED STATES FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus The Governor of California had no power, on the 8th June, 1846, either under the colonization law of August 18, 1824, and the regulations of November 21, 1828, nor yet under the dispatch of March 10, 1846, from Tornel, Minister of War, nor under the proclamation of Mariano Paredes y Arrilaga, President ad interim of the Mexican Republic, dated March 13, 1846 -- these two last made in anticipation of the invasion of California by the forces of the United States -- nor under any other authority, to make a valid sale and grant of the mission of San Gabriel in California. Appeal by the United States from a decree of the District Court for the Southern District of California confirming a decision of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Younge v. Guilbeau - 70 U.S. 636 (1865) U.S. Supreme Court Younge v. Guilbeau, 70 U.S. 3 Wall. 636 636 (1865) Younge v. Guilbeau 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 636 ERROR TO THE FEDERAL COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Syllabus 1. The statute of Texas relating to the organization &c.;, of its district courts, which enacts that when a party shall file an affidavit of the loss of an instrument recorded under the statute, or of his inability to procure the original, a certified copy of the record shall be admitted in like manner as the original does not dispense with the proof which is exacted when the original instrument is filed, in case an affidavit (which the statute also allows) alleging a belief of its forgery, is made. It only allows the certified copy to take the place of the original when that is lost or cannot be procured, and the copy produced under such circumstances will have no greater weight than the original itself. To avail himself, therefore, of the statute, the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
City of Philadelphia v. The Collector - 72 U.S. 720 (1866) U.S. Supreme Court City of Philadelphia v. The Collector, 72 U.S. 5 Wall. 720 720 (1866) City of Philadelphia v. The Collector 72 U.S. (5 Wall.) 720 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus 1. The jurisdiction of the circuit court in a case between citizens of he same state, under the internal revenue laws of July 1, 1862, and March 3, 1863, removed thereto from a state court under the Act of March 2, 1833 (the Force Bill), and before the passage of the Internal Revenue Act of June 30, 1864, is saved by the sixty-eighth section of the Internal Revenue Act of July 13, 1866, if the justice of said circuit court is of opinion that the case would be removable from the state court to the circuit court under the sixty-seventh section of the said Act of July 13, 1866. 2. Where a case, removed from a state court to a circuit court under the act of 1833, above mentioned, would be clearly removable under the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Averill v. Smith - 84 U.S. 82 (1872) U.S. Supreme Court Averill v. Smith, 84 U.S. 17 Wall. 82 82 (1872) Averill v. Smith 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 82 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus Trespass will not lie against a collector of internal revenue for improperly seizing and carrying away goods as forfeited where, on information afterwards filed, the marshal has returned that he has seized and attached them, and where after a trial absolving them, a certificate of probable cause has been granted under the eighty-ninth section of the Act of February 24, 1807, and where the owner of the goods has never made any claim of the collector for them except by bringing the action of trespass. The claimant of the goods after a trial where probable cause has been certified ought to move the court for the necessary orders to cause the property to be returned to the rightful owners if the court have itself omitted to make such an order. It is not the duty of ei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
North Missouri Railroad Company v. Maguire - 87 U.S. 46 (1873) U.S. Supreme Court North Missouri Railroad Company v. Maguire, 87 U.S. 20 Wall. 46 46 (1873) North Missouri Railroad Company v. Maguire 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 46 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI Syllabus 1. A contract by a state to give up its power to tax any property within it can be made only by words which show clearly and unequivocally an intention to make such a contract. 2. The act of the Legislature of Missouri of February 16, 1865, to provide for the completion of the North Missouri Railroad does not so show an intention of the state to give up its power to tax the property of the corporation owning that railroad. 3. The ordinance of the 8th of April, 1865, adopted by the people of Missouri, as part of the constitution of the state established on that day, was, as respected the North Missouri Railroad Company, a true exercise of the taxing power of the state, and not a mere change of the order of disbu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Randall v. Kreiger - 90 U.S. 137 (1874) U.S. Supreme Court Randall v. Kreiger, 90 U.S. 23 Wall. 137 137 (1874) Randall v. Kreiger 90 U.S. (23 Wall.) 137 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Syllabus A. and wife, residents of the State of New York, executed a power of attorney to B. to sell lands in Minnesota Territory of which A., the husband, was seized. The power was executed and acknowledged by both parties, the wife undergoing such separate examination as by the laws of New York makes valid the execution of deeds by a feme covert. At the time when this power of attorney was given, there was no law of the territory authorizing such an instrument to be executed by the wife or the attorney Page 90 U. S. 138 to convey under it. B., professing to act for the two parties, sold and conveyed a piece of the land, then worth $3,000, with general warranty, to C. for that sum, and A. received the money. The Legislature of Minnesota subsequently passed an act...
Tag this Judgment!