Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1859
Zabriskie v. Cleveland, C. & C. R. Co. - 64 U.S. 381 (1859) U.S. Supreme Court Zabriskie v. Cleveland, C. & C. R. Co., 64 U.S. 23 How. 381 381 (1859) Zabriskie v. Cleveland, Cleveland, Columbus & Cincinnati Railroad Company 64 U.S. (23 How.) 381 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Syllabus In 1851, the Legislature of Ohio passed a general law relating to railway companies which empowered them at any time, by means of their subscription to the capital stock of any other company or otherwise, to aid such other railroad company, provided no such aid shall be furnished until, at a called meeting of the stockholders, two-thirds of the stock represented shall have assented thereto. In 1852, another act was passed for the creation and regulation of incorporated companies in Ohio, reenacting the above section and providing further, that any existing company might accept any of its provisions, and when so accepted, and a certified copy...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1859
United States v. Walker - 63 U.S. 299 (1859) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Walker, 63 U.S. 22 How. 299 299 (1859) United States v. Walker 63 U.S. (22 How.) 299 ERROR FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA Syllabus The Act of Congress passed on the 7th of May, 1822, 3 Stat. 695, enumerated the ports of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Charleston, Savannah, and New Orleans, in which the collector was allowed to receive more than three thousand dollars a year. In the nonenumerated ports, the maximum rate of annual compensation or salary allowed to the office was three thousand dollars. Mobile was one of the nonenumerated ports, and consequently the salary of the collector at Mobile was not to exceed three thousand dollars, by that act. This act was not repealed by any of the numerous acts, called additional compensation acts, which were passed from time to time between 1833 and 1841, until one of these temporary acts, v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1859
Flowers v. Foreman - 64 U.S. 132 (1859) U.S. Supreme Court Flowers v. Foreman, 64 U.S. 23 How. 132 132 (1859) Flowers v. Foreman 64 U.S. (23 How.) 132 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Syllabus Where a party residing in Maryland sold land in Louisiana with a general warranty to a resident of Louisiana, who was afterwards evicted from a part of it and obtained a judgment against his warrantor, whom he had vouched in, Page 64 U. S. 133 this judgment could not be rendered effective against the Maryland vendor, because no notice had been served upon him and the appointment of a curator ad hoc was not sufficient. An action of assumpsit having been afterwards brought against him in the Maryland court by the parties interested, the statute of limitations of Maryland was considered to be applicable to the case. The eviction of the vendee took place when he held the land under a title different from that which had been conveyed to him by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1859
United States v. Kinlock - 64 U.S. 262 (1859) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Kinlock, 64 U.S. 23 How. 262 262 (1859) United States v. Kinlock 64 U.S. (23 How.) 262 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus Sutter's general title to lands in California again examined, together with the historical events which preceded and attended it. The Court again decides that claims under this title are not valid. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court. Page 64 U. S. 265 MR. JUSTICE CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellees were confirmed in a tract of land in Yuba County, California, containing six square leagues, bounded north by the Yuba River, west by the eastern line of Captain Sutter's land, south by Johnson's rancho, and easterly for quantity. Page 64 U. S. 266 The original claimant is John Smith. He was examined as a witness, and testifies that he was a naturalized citizen of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1859
Lawler v. Claflin - 63 U.S. 23 (1859) U.S. Supreme Court Lawler v. Claflin, 63 U.S. 22 How. 23 23 (1859) Lawler v. Claflin 63 U.S. (22 How.) 23 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF MINNESOTA Syllabus Where proceedings were had in Minnesota for the sale of property mortgaged to secure a debt, and the judgment of the court below was that the property should be sold, there appears to be no error in the judgment, and it must therefore be affirmed. The action was commenced in the district court, second district, County of Ramsey, by Claflin and the other defendants in error, against Lawler and thirty-two other persons, who were claimants under Lawler. The statutes of Minnesota abolished the distinction between the forms of action at law, and declared that there should be in the territory but one form of action at law, to be called a civil action, for the enforcement and protection of private rights and the redress of private wrongs, except as otherwise expressly prov...
Tag this Judgment!