Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-25-1896
United States v. Allen - 163 U.S. 499 (1896) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Allen, 163 U.S. 499 (1896) United States v. Allen No. 337 Submitted May 8, 1896 Decided May 25, 1896 163 U.S. 499 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The right to a drawback on bituminous coal, imported into the United States and consumed as fuel on a steam vessel engaged in the coasting trade of the United States, which existed before the passage of the Tariff Act of October 1, 1890, c. 1244, 26 Stat. 567, was taken away by the passage of that bill. The case is stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. The defendant in error brought his action against the United States in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California to recover the amounts of certain alleged drawbacks of duty on importations of bituminous coal which, in February, 1891, were supplied as fuel to the steamer Humboldt, a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-06-1896
United States v. New York - 160 U.S. 598 (1896) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. New York, 160 U.S. 598 (1896) United States v. New York Nos. 45, 136 Argued October 17-18, 1895 Decided January 6, 1896 160 U.S. 598 APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus Any claim made against an Executive Department "involving disputed facts or controverted questions of law, where the amount in controversy exceeds three thousand dollars, or where the decision will affect a class of cases, or furnish a precedent for the future action of any Executive Department in the adjustment of a class of cases, without regard to the amount involved in the particular case, or where any authority, right, privilege or exemption is claimed or denied under the Constitution of the United States," may be transmitted to the Court of Claims by the head of such Department under Rev.Stat. 1063 for final adjudication, provided, such claim be not barred by limitation, and be one of which, by reason of its sub...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-25-1896
Ward v. Race Horse - 163 U.S. 504 (1896) U.S. Supreme Court Ward v. Race Horse, 163 U.S. 504 (1896) Ward v. Race Horse No. 841 Argued March 11-12, 1896 Decided May 25, 1896 163 U.S. 504 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING Syllabus The provision in the Treaty of February 24, 1869, with the Bannock Indians, whose reservation was within the limits of what is now the Wyoming, that "they shall have the right to hunt upon the unoccupied lands of the United States so long as game may be found thereon," etc., does not give them the right to exercise this privilege within the limits of that state in violation of its laws. This appeal was taken from an order of the court below, rendered in a habeas corpus proceeding, discharging the appellee Page 163 U. S. 505 from custody. 70 F. 598. The petition for the writ based the right to the relief which it prayed, and which the court below granted, on the ground that the detention complained of w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-06-1896
Spalding v. Chandler - 160 U.S. 394 (1896) U.S. Supreme Court Spalding v. Chandler, 160 U.S. 394 (1896) Spalding v. Chandler No. 86 Argued December 2, 1895 Decided January 6, 1896 160 U.S. 394 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Syllabus The Indian reservation at Sault Ste. Marie, under the Treaty of June 26. 1820, with the Chippewas, continued until extinguished by the Treaty of August 2, 1855, and upon the extinguishment of the Indian title at that time, the land included in the reservation was made, by 10 of the Act of September 4, 1841, not subject to preemption. The plaintiff in error claimed the land in dispute in this controversy under an alleged preemption entry. The claim of the defendant in error rested upon a patent from the United States. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. Plaintiff in error, by a bill in equity filed in the Circuit Court of the County of Chippewa, State of Mi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Nov-02-1896
United States v. McMahon - 164 U.S. 81 (1896) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. McMahon, 164 U.S. 81 (1896) United States v. McMahon Nos. 856-857 Argued October 21, 1896 Decided November 2, 1896 164 U.S. 81 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus The fees to which a marshal is entitled, under Rev.Stat. 829, for attending criminal examinations in separate and distinct cases upon the same day and before the same commissioner, are five dollars a day, but when he attends such examinations before different commissioners on the same day, he is entitled to a fee of two dollars for attendance before each commissioner. A special deputy marshal, appointed under Rev.Stat. 2021, to attend Page 164 U. S. 82 before commissioners and aid and assist supervisors of elections, is entitled to an allowance of five dollars per day in full compensation for all such services. The marshal of the Southern District of New York, who transports convicts from New Yo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-02-1896
Reported in : (1896)ILR23Cal884
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. My answer to the question referred to this Bench is that no second appeal lies from a suit for mesne profits, where the value of the subject-matter in dispute is less than Rs. 500. In other words, I think that such a suit is cognizable in Courts of Small Causes and is within the provisions of Section 586 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. By the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (IX of 1887), Section 15, jurisdiction is given to Courts of Small Causes to take cognizance of all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed Rs. 500, except such suits as are specified in the. second schedule of the Act; and the question to be determined by this Bench is whether a suit for mesne profits is one of the suits specified in the schedule. A suit for mesne profits is not mentioned in the schedule by name, but it is said that it is included in the description of a suit in the latter part of Article 31 of the schedule. That description is 'a suit for the profits o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-02-1896
New Orleans Flour Inspectors v. Glover - 161 U.S. 101 (1896) U.S. Supreme Court New Orleans Flour Inspectors v. Glover, 161 U.S. 101 (1896) New Orleans Flour Inspectors v. Glover No. 88 Received January 11, 1896 Decided March 2, 1896 161 U.S. 101 PETITION FOR A REHEARING Syllabus The decree dismissing the appeal in this case ( 160 U. S. 160 U.S. 170) is vacated and the decree below reversed without costs to either party, and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the bill. The case is stated in the opinion. Page 161 U. S. 102 MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the Court. This was a bill filed by complainants June 19, 1891, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana against the Board of Flour Inspectors for the port of New Orleans and the individual members thereof to enjoin the enforcement of a certain act of 1870 of the General Assembly of Louisiana. The ground of equity interposition set up was want of adequa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-18-1896
Central Pacific R. Co. v. California - 162 U.S. 91 (1896) U.S. Supreme Court Central Pacific R. Co. v. California, 162 U.S. 91 (1896) Central Pacific Railroad Company v. California No. 559 Argued January 15-16, 1896 Decided March 18, 1896 162 U.S. 91 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus The Central Pacific Railroad Company, being required by the laws of California to make returns of its property to the Board of Equalization for purposes of taxation, made a verified statement in which, among other things, it was said: "The value of the franchise and entire roadway, roadbed, and rails within this state is $12,273,785." The Board of Equalization determined that the actual value of the franchises, roadway, roadbed, rails, and rolling stock of the company within the state at that time was $18,000,000. The company not having paid the taxes assessed on this valuation, this action was brought by the state to recover them. Held: (1) That the presumption w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-18-1896
Bacon v. Texas - 163 U.S. 207 (1896) U.S. Supreme Court Bacon v. Texas, 163 U.S. 207 (1896) Bacon v. Texas No. 296 Argued May 6-7, 1896 Decided May 18, 1896 163 U.S. 207 ERROR TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE SECOND SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS Syllabus In this case, application was made by the defendants below, after judgment, to the Supreme Court of Texas for a writ of error to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Second District for the purpose of reviewing the judgment of that court, and the application was denied. Held that this Court has jurisdiction to reexamine the judgment on writ of error to the court of civil appeals. In case of a change of phraseology in an article in a state constitution, it is for the state courts to determine whether the change calls for a change of construction. Where there are two grounds for the judgment of a state court, one only of which involves a federal question, and the other is broad enough to maintain a ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-02-1896
United States v. Stanford - 161 U.S. 412 (1896) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Stanford, 161 U.S. 412 (1896) United States v. Stanford No. 783 Argued January 28-29, 1896 Decided March 2, 1896 161 U.S. 412 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus An examination of the statutes of the United States relating to the construction of a railroad from the Missouri River to the Pacific Ocean, especially the Acts of July 1, 1862, c. 120, 12 Stat. 489, and July 2, 1864, c. 216, 13 Stat. 356, shows that every subscriber to the Union Pacific Railroad Company must be deemed to have become such upon the condition, implied by law, that he should not be personally liable for the debts of the corporation. It is equally clear that Congress intended to grant national aid to all the corporations constructing that connecting line of railroad upon terms and conditions applicable alike to all, with no purpose to make discriminations against any one part of the ...
Tag this Judgment!