Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1868
United States v. Lane - 75 U.S. 185 (1868) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Lane, 75 U.S. 8 Wall. 185 185 (1868) United States v. Lane 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 185 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus 1. The 8th section of the Act of July 2, 1864, which enacts that it shall be lawful for the Secretary of the Treasury, with the approval of the President, to authorize agents to purchase for the United States any products of states declared in insurrection, did not confer the power to license trading within the military lines of the enemy 2. In connection with the regulations of the Treasury Department and an executive order of the President issued in accordance with the act, it authorized the insurgents to bring their cotton within our lines, without seizure and with a promise on our part to buy it from them, with liberty on theirs to go to the nearest Treasury agent in an insurrectionary district to sell it, or if they preferred to leave it under the control of someone who cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1868
Gordon v. United States - 74 U.S. 188 (1868) U.S. Supreme Court Gordon v. United States, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 188 188 (1868) Gordon v. United States 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 188 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus 1. An act of Congress referring a claim against the government to an officer of one of the executive departments to examine and adjust does not, even though the claimant and government act under the statute and the account is examined and adjusted, make the case one of arbitrament and award in the technical sense of these words and so as to bind either party its by submission to award. Hence, a subsequent act repealing the one making the reference (the claim not being yet paid) impairs no right and is valid. De Groot v. United States, 5 Wall. 432, affirmed. 2. Semble that the Court does not sanction the allowance of interest on claims against the government. The legal representatives of George Fisher, deceased, by petition represented to the court just named that dur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1868
Furman v. Nichol - 75 U.S. 44 (1868) U.S. Supreme Court Furman v. Nichol, 75 U.S. 8 Wall. 44 44 (1868) Furman v. Nichol 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 44 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE Syllabus 1. A cause can be removed from a state court into this Court under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 whenever some one of the questions embraced in it was relied on by the party who brings the cause here, and when the right which he asserted that it gave him was denied to him by the state court, provided the record show either by express averment or by clear and necessary intendment that the constitutional provision did arise, and that the court below could not have reached the conclusion and judgment it did reach, without applying it to the case in hand. 2. It need not appear that the state court erred in its judgment. It is sufficient to confer jurisdiction that the question was in the case, was decided adversely to the plaintiff in error, and that the court was induc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1868
Bronson v. Rodes - 74 U.S. 229 (1868) U.S. Supreme Court Bronson v. Rodes, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 229 229 (1868) Bronson v. Rodes 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 229 ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Syllabus 1. A bond, given in December, 1851, for payment of a certain sum, in gold and silver coin, lawful money of the United States, with interest also in coin, at a rate specified, until repayment, cannot be discharged by a tender of United States notes issued under the Loan and Currency Acts of 1862 and 1863, and by them declared to be lawful money and a legal tender for the payment of debts. 2. When obligations made payable in coin are sued upon, judgment may be entered for coined dollars and parts of dollars. The facts shown by the record were these: In December, 1851, one Christian Metz, having borrowed of Frederick Bronson, executor of Arthur Bronson, fourteen hundred dollars, executed his bond for the repayment to Bronson of the principal sum borrowed on the 18th day o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1868
Waring v. The Mayor - 75 U.S. 110 (1868) U.S. Supreme Court Waring v. The Mayor, 75 U.S. 8 Wall. 110 110 (1868) Waring v. The Mayor 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 110 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA Syllabus The Bay of Mobile being included within the statutory definition of the port of Mobile, contracts for the purchase of cargoes of foreign merchandise before or after the arrival of the vessel in the said bay, where the goods by the terms of the contract, are not to be at the risk of the purchaser until delivered to him in said bay, do not constitute the purchaser an "importer," and the goods so purchased and sold by him, though in the original packages, may be properly subjected to taxation by the state. Error to the Supreme Court of Alabama, the question involved arising upon that clause of the Constitution which ordains that "no state shall lay any imposts on imports, or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws." The facts were these: ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1868
Ex Parte Yerger - 75 U.S. 85 (1868) U.S. Supreme Court Ex Parte Yerger, 75 U.S. 8 Wall. 85 85 (1868) Ex Parte Yerger 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 85 ON MOTION AND PETITION FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS AND CERTIORARI Syllabus 1. In all cases where a circuit court of the United States has, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, caused a prisoner to be brought before it and has, after inquiring into the cause of detention, remanded him to the custody from which he was taken, this Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, may, by the writ of habeas corpus, aided by the writ of certiorari, revise the decision of the circuit court, and if it be found unwarranted by law, relieve the prisoner from the unlawful restraint to which he has been remanded. 2. The second section of the Act of March 27, 1868, repealing so much of the Act of February 5, 1867, as authorized appeals from the circuit courts to the Supreme Court, does not take away or affect the appellate jurisdiction of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1868
Ex parte McCardle - 74 U.S. 506 (1868) U.S. Supreme Court Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 506 506 (1868) Ex parte McCardle 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI Syllabus 1. The appellate jurisdiction of this court is conferred by the Constitution, and not derived from acts of Congress, but is conferred "with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as Congress may make," and, therefore, acts of Congress affirming such jurisdiction have always been construed as excepting from it all cases not expressly described and provided for. 2. When, therefore, Congress enacts that this court shall have appellate jurisdiction over final decisions of the Circuit Courts in certain cases, the act operates as a negation or exception of such jurisdiction in other cases, and the repeal of the act necessarily negatives jurisdiction under it of these cases also. 3. The repeal of such an act, pending an appeal provided for by it, is no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1868
Texas v. White - 74 U.S. 700 (1868) U.S. Supreme Court Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 700 700 (1868) Texas v. White 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 ON ORIGINAL BILL Syllabus 1. The word "State" describes sometimes a people or community of individuals united more or less closely in political relations, inhabiting temporarily or permanently the same country; often it denotes only the country, or territorial region, inhabited by such a community; not unfrequently, it is applied to the government under which the people live; at other times, it represents the combined idea of people, territory, and government. 2. In the Constitution, the term "State" most frequently expresses the combined idea, just noticed, of people, territory, and government. A State, in the ordinary sense of the Constitution, is a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries and organised under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established by the cons...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1868
Edmonson v. Bloomshire - 74 U.S. 306 (1868) U.S. Supreme Court Edmonson v. Bloomshire, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 306 306 (1868) Edmonson v. Bloomshire 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 306 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Syllabus 1. If it is apparent from the record that this Court has not acquired jurisdiction of a case for want of proper appeal or writ of error, it will be dismissed although neither party ask it. 2. An appeal or writ of error which does not bring to this Court a transcript of the record before the expiration of the term to which it is returnable is no longer a valid appeal or writ. 3. Although a prayer for an appeal, and its allowance by the court below, constitute a valid appeal though no bond be given (the bond being to be given with effect at any time while the appeal is in force), yet if no transcript is filed in this Court at the term next succeeding the allowance of the appeal, it has lost its vitality as an appeal. 4. Such vitality cannot be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1868
The Lucy - 75 U.S. 307 (1868) U.S. Supreme Court The Lucy, 75 U.S. 8 Wall. 307 307 (1868) The Lucy 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 307 MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Syllabus 1. An appeal which had been allowed from a district court having circuit court powers dismissed, it having been allowed just after an act had passed which created a circuit court for the same district and which repealed so much of any act as gave to the district court circuit court powers. 2. Appellate jurisdiction in the federal courts depends on the Constitution and the acts of Congress. When these do not confer it, courts of the United States cannot exercise it by virtue of agreements of counsel or otherwise. 3. The fact that no transcript of the record was filed at the next term to that when a decree appealed from was made is, in general, fatal to the appeal. An act of Congress of 1803 [ Footnote 1 ] prescribes the circumstances under which appeals are all...
Tag this Judgment!