Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-27-1901
DeLima v. Bidwell - 182 U.S. 1 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court DeLima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 (1901) DeLima v. Bidwell No. 966 Argued January 8-11, 1901 Decided May 27, 1901 182 U.S. 1 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus By the Customs Administrative Act of 1890, an appeal is given from the decision of the collector "as to the rate and amount of the duties chargeable upon imported merchandise," to the Board of General Appraisers, who are authorized to decide "as to the construction of the law and the facts respecting the classification of such merchandise, and the rate of duties imposed thereon under such classification," but where the merchandise is alleged not to have been imported at all, but to have been brought from one domestic port to another, the Board of General Appraisers has no jurisdiction of the case, and an action for money had and received will lie against the collector to recover back duties assessed by h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-31-1901
Reported in : (1902)ILR29Cal54
Banerjee, J.1. In these appeals, which arise out of applications for execution of certain rent decrees for sums not exceeding Rs. 500, the main question for determination is whether an application for the execution of a decree obtained by two or more joint-landlords for their share of the rent is governed by the special rule of limitation laid down in Article 6 of Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act, or by the general law of limitation, namely, Article 179 of the Second Schedule of Act XV of 1877.2. If the special law of limitation applies, the applications for execution are barred, unless they can be treated as being in continuation of certain previous applications made within three years from the date of the decrees. If the general law of limitation governs the cases, the applications are in time. The Courts below have held that the applications, which are admittedly made by a co-sharer landlord for the execution of decrees for his share of the rent, are not governed by Article 6 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-07-1901
Yazoo & Mississippi R. Co. v. Adams - 180 U.S. 41 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Yazoo & Mississippi R. Co. v. Adams, 180 U.S. 41 (1901) Yazoo and Mississippi Railroad Company v. Adams No. 89 Submitted October 22, 1900 Decided January 7, 1901 180 U.S. 41 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Syllabus A writ of error to the supreme court of a state cannot be sustained when the only question involved is the construction of a charter or contract, although it appear that there were statutes subsequent to such charter which might have been, but were not, relied upon as raising a federal question concerning the construction of the contract. If the sole question be whether the Supreme Court has properly interpreted the contract, and there be no question of subsequent legislative impairment, there is no federal question to be answered. The Court is not bound to search the statutes to find one which can be construed as impairing the obligation Page 180 U. S. 42 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-15-1901
Fairbank v. United States - 181 U.S. 283 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Fairbank v. United States, 181 U.S. 283 (1901) Fairbank v. United States No. 226 Argued December 13, 1900 Decided April 15, 1901 181 U.S. 283 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Syllabus A stamp tax on a foreign bill of lading is, in substance and effect, equivalent to a tax on the articles included in that bill of lading, and therefore is a tax or duty on exports, and therefore in conflict with Article I, 9, of the Constitution of the United States, that "No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." An act of Congress is to be accepted as constitutional unless, on examination, it clearly appears to be in conflict with provisions of the federal Constitution. If the Constitution in its grant of powers is to be able to carry into full effect the powers granted, it is equally imperative that, where prohibition or limitation is placed upon the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Dec-09-1901
Wilson v. Nelson - 183 U.S. 191 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Wilson v. Nelson, 183 U.S. 191 (1901) Wilson v. Nelson No. 31 Submitted April 22, 1901 Decided December 9, 1901 183 U.S. 191 CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus When a debtor, years before the filing of a petition in bankruptcy, gives to a creditor an irrevocable power of attorney to confess judgment after maturity upon a promissory note of the debtor, and the creditor, within four months before the filing of the petition in bankruptcy against the debtor, obtains such a judgment and execution thereon, and the debtor fails at least five days before a sale on the execution, to vacate or discharge the judgment, or to file a voluntary petition in bankruptcy, the judgment and execution are a preference "suffered or permitted" by the debtor, within the meaning of the Bankrupt Act of July 1, 1898, c. 541, 3, cl. 3, and the debtor's failure to vacate or discharge the preference so ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-07-1901
Illinois Central R. Co. v. Adams - 180 U.S. 28 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Illinois Central R. Co. v. Adams, 180 U.S. 28 (1901) Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Adams Nos. 77-79 Argued October 24, 1900 Decided January 7, 1901 180 U.S. 28 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI Syllabus An appeal to this Court from a circuit court will not be dismissed upon the ground that, after an injunction against the collection of certain taxes was refused by the circuit court, and while the suit was still pending in that court, defendant brought suit in the state court and recovered the taxes in question. The defense of res adjudicata cannot be made available upon motion to dismiss an appeal. Jurisdiction is the right to put the wheels of justice in motion and to proceed to the final determination of the cause upon the pleadings and evidence. It exists in the circuit courts if the plaintiff be a citizen of one state, the defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-13-1901
Lockhart v. Johnson - 181 U.S. 516 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Lockhart v. Johnson, 181 U.S. 516 (1901) Lockhart v. Johnson No. 147 Argued March 22, 1901 Decided May 13, 1901 181 U.S. 516 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO Syllabus Public lands belonging to the United States, for whose sale or other disposition Congress has made provision by general laws, are to be regarded as legally open for entry and sale under such laws unless some particular lands have been withdrawn from sale by Congressional authority, or by an executive withdrawal under such authority, either express or implied. Under the act establishing the Court of Private Land Claims, public lands belonging to the United States, though within the claimed limits of a Mexican grant, became open to entry and sale. If the provisions of the laws of New Mexico, in force when this location was made, were not complied with, and another location is made before such work was done, the new location i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-27-1901
Downes v. Bidwell - 182 U.S. 244 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) Downes v. Bidwell No. 507 Argued January 8-11, 1901 Decided May 27, 1901 * 182 U.S. 244 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus By MR. JUSTICE BROWN, in announcing the conclusion and judgment of the Court. The circuit courts have jurisdiction, regardless of amount, of actions against a collector of customs for duties exacted and paid under protest upon merchandise alleged not to have been imported. The Island of Porto Rico is not a part of the United States within that provision of the Constitution which declares that "all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." Page 182 U. S. 245 There is a clear distinction between such prohibitions of the Constitution as go to the very root of the power of Congress to act at all, irrespective of time or place, and such as are operative only throu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-27-1901
Glavey v. United States - 182 U.S. 595 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Glavey v. United States, 182 U.S. 595 (1901) Glavey v. United States No. 236 Argued April 11-12, 1901 Decided May 27, 1901 182 U.S. 595 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus When an office with a fixed salary has been created by statute, and a person duly appointed to it has qualified and entered upon the discharge of his duties, he is entitled, during his incumbency, to be paid the salary prescribed by statute. Such an appointment is complete when duly made by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and the giving of a bond required by law is a mere ministerial act for the security of the government, and not a condition precedent to his authority to act in performance of the duties of the office. As the act of 1882 created a distinct, separate office, with a fixed annual salary for the incumbent, to be paid by the Secretary of the Treasury; as the plaintiff was legally appointed thereto, by the Secreta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-25-1901
Freeport Water Co. v. Freeport City - 180 U.S. 587 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Freeport Water Co. v. Freeport City, 180 U.S. 587 (1901) Freeport Water Company v. Freeport City No. 349 Submitted October 31, 1900 Decided March 25, 1901 180 U.S. 587 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Syllabus The water company was a corporation organized under general statutes of Illinois, as was also the city. In June, 1882, the government of the city gave the water company an exclusive right to supply the city with water for thirty years, reserving the right of purchasing the works erected for that purpose, and if this right were not exercised, the rights of the company were to be extended for a further term. Provision was made for the erection of hydrants by the company for which fixed rentals were to be charged, and the city was given rights in a part of them. Further provisions were made for the payment of water rates by consumers. In 1896, an ordinance was passed by the ci...
Tag this Judgment!