Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-04-1892
Coosaw Mining Co. v. South Carolina - 144 U.S. 550 (1892) U.S. Supreme Court Coosaw Mining Co. v. South Carolina, 144 U.S. 550 (1892) Coosaw Mining Company v. South Carolina No. 1448 Argued March 14-15, 1892 Decided April 4, 1892 144 U.S. 550 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Syllabus The statute of the South Carolina, passed March 2H, 1876, acts of 1875-6, p. 198, is capable of being construed either, when taken by itself, as conferring upon the Coosaw Mining Company the exclusive right of Page 144 U. S. 551 digging, mining and removing phosphate rocks for an unlimited period, so long as it should comply with the terms of the statute, or, when taken in connection with the Act of March 1, 1870, 14 Gen.Stats.So.Car. 381, as conferring such a right only for "the full term of 21 years" named in the latter act, and as the interpretation should be adopted which is most favorable to the state, it is held that such exclusive ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-29-1892
Reported in : (1893)3MLJ54
1. The question referred to the Full Bench is whether when it is proved that a subsequent incumbrancer under a registered conveyance had notice of a valid prior unregistered incumbrance and of possession by such incumbrancer or of such conveyance without possession, the courts are bound to interpret Section 50 of the present Registration Act so as to defeat the title of the prior incumbrancer.2. The first attempt to compel the registration of deeds &c;, in India was by Regulation XVII of 1802, a regulation for establishing a Registry for Wills and Deeds for the transfer or mortgage of real property and it was enacted by Section 6, Clause 3, that, 'it being the object, however, of the rules in the two preceding clauses, to prevent persons being defrauded by purchasing or receiving in gift, or taking in mortgage, real property which may have been before sold, given, or mortgaged, subsequent to the period fixed for the operation of this regulation ; and as persons can never suffer such im...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-29-1892
Field v. Clark - 143 U.S. 649 (1892) U.S. Supreme Court Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892) Field v. Clark Nos. 1052, 1049, 1050 Argued November 30, December 1-2, 1891 Decided February 29, 1892 143 U.S. 649 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus The signing by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and by the President of the Senate, in open session, of an enrolled bill is an official attestation by the two Houses of such bill as one that has passed Congress, and when the bill thus attested receives the approval of the President and is deposited in the Department of State according to law, its authentication as a bill that has passed Congress is complete and unimpeachable. Page 143 U. S. 650 It is not competent to show from the journals of either House of Congress that an act so authenticated, approved and deposited, did not pass in the precise form in which it was signed by the presiding officers of the two ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Nov-21-1892
Washington & Georgetown R. Co. v. District of Columbia - 146 U.S. 227 (1892) U.S. Supreme Court Washington & Georgetown R. Co. v. District of Columbia, 146 U.S. 227 (1892) Washington and Georgetown Railroad Company v. District of Columbia No. 27 Argued and submitted November 10-11, 1892 Decided November 21, 1892 146 U.S. 227 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus With certain exceptions, within which this case does not fall, the statutes regulating appeals from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia Page 146 U. S. 228 only apply to cases where there is a matter in dispute measurable by some sum or value in money. The appellate jurisdiction of this Court, when dependent upon the sum in dispute between the parties, is to be tested without regard to the collateral effect of the judgment in another suit between the same or other parties, and this rule applies to a bill in equity to restrain the collection of a specific tax levied under a ge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-21-1892
Reported in : (1892)ILR19Cal544
W. Comer Petheram, Kt., C.J.1. The question which we have to determine is whether a person who has for a time exercised the exclusive right of fishing in waters which cover land which does not belong to him, and who is forcibly prevented from fishing in such waters, can maintain an action for such prevention under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) without proving his own title to the exclusive right which he claims.2. I agree that a right of fishing in waters which cover land which belongs to another is within the definition of immoveable property in Section 2, Sub-section 5 of the General Clauses Act (I of 1868), and would therefore be included within Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act if there were not, to use the words of Section 2 of the General Clauses Act, 'something repugnant in the subject or context.' I am of opinion that the whole of Section 9 is repugnant to the idea that immoveable property in that section includes an incorporeal right such as a right of fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-01-1892
District of Columbia v. Hutton - 143 U.S. 18 (1892) U.S. Supreme Court District of Columbia v. Hutton, 143 U.S. 18 (1892) District of Columbia v. Hutton No. 1338 Argued January 12, 1892 Decided February 1, 1892 143 U.S. 18 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus Section 354 of Rev.Stat.Dist.Columb., providing that "No person shall be appointed to office, or hold office in the police force [of the District of Columbia] who cannot read and write the English language, or who is not a citizen of the United States, or who shall ever have been indicted and convicted of crime, and no person shall be appointed as policeman or watchman who has not served in the Army or Navy of the United States and received an honorable discharge" was repealed by the Act of June 11, 1875, "providing a permanent form of government for the District of Columbia." 20 Stat. 102, c. 180. Ecklof v. District of Columbia, 135 U. S. 240 , affirmed as to the point that the Act of J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-18-1892
Nishimura Ekiu v. United States - 142 U.S. 651 (1892) U.S. Supreme Court Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651 (1892) Nishimura Ekiu v. United States No. 1393 Argued and submitted December 16, 1891 Decided January 18, 1892 142 U.S. 651 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus The Act of March 3, 1591, c. 551, forbidding certain classes of alien immigrants to land in the United States, is constitutional and valid. Upon a writ of habeas corpus, if sufficient ground for the prisoner's detention by the government is shown, he is not to be discharged for defects in the original arrest or commitment. Page 142 U. S. 652 Inspectors of immigration under the Act of March 3, 1891, c. 551, are to be appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The decision of an inspector of immigration, within the authority conferred upon him by the Act of March 3, 1891, c. 651, that an alien immigrant shall not be permitted to land...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Dec-05-1892
Illinois Central R. Co. v. Illinois - 146 U.S. 387 (1892) U.S. Supreme Court Illinois Central R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892) Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Illinois Nos. 419, 608-809 Argued October 12-14, 1892 Decided December 5, 1892 146 U.S. 387 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus The ownership of and dominion and sovereignty over lands covered by tidewaters, within the limits of the several states, belong to the respective states within which they are found, with the consequent right to use or dispose of any portion thereof when that can be done without substantial impairment of the interest of the public in the waters, and subject always to the paramount right of Congress to control their navigation so far as may he necessary for the regulation of commerce with foreign nations and among the states. The same doctrine as to the dominion and sovereignty over and ownership of lands under the navi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-16-1892
Reported in : (1893)ILR16Mad148
Arthur J.H. Collins, Kt., C.J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is whether, when it is proved that a subsequent encumbrancer under a registered conveyance had notice of a valid prior unregistered encumbrance and of possession by such encumbrancer, or of such conveyance without possession, the Courts are bound to interpret Section 50 of the present Registration Act so as to defeat the title of the prior encumbrancer.2. The first attempt to compel the registration of deeds, etc., in Madras was by Regulation XVII of 1802, a regulation for establishing a registry for wills and deeds for the transfer or mortgage of real property, and it was enacted by Section 6, Clause 3, that ' it being the object, however, of the rules in the two preceding clauses, to prevent persons being defrauded by purchasing, or receiving in gift, or taking in mortgage, real property which may have been before sold, given, or mortgaged, subsequent to the period fixed for the operation of this regulation; and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1892
McPherson v. Blacker - 146 U.S. 1 (1892) U.S. Supreme Court McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892) McPherson v. Blacker No. 1170 Argued Oct. 11, 1892 Decided Oct. 17, 1892 146 U.S. 1 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Syllabus The validity of a state law providing for the appointment of electors of President and Vice President having been drawn in question before the highest tribunal of a state as repugnant to the laws and Constitution of the United States, and that court having decided in favor of its validity, this Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment under Rev.Stat. 709. Under the second clause of Article II of the Constitution, the legislatures of the several states have exclusive power to direct the manner in which the electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed. Such appointment may be made by the legislatures directly, or by popular vote in districts, or by general ticket, as may be provided by the legislature. If the ter...
Tag this Judgment!