Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Padelford - 76 U.S. 531 (1869) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Padelford, 76 U.S. 9 Wall. 531 531 (1869) United States v. Padelford 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 531 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus 1. Claimants under the Captured and Abandoned Property Act, of March 12,1863, are not deprived of the benefits of that act because of aid and comfort not voluntarily given by them to the rebellion. 2. But voluntarily executing as surety, through motives of personal friendship to the principals, the official bonds of persons acting as quartermasters or as assistant commissaries in the rebel army was giving aid and comfort to the rebellion, although the principals, by their appointment to the offices named, escaped active military service and were enabled to remain at home in the discharge of their offices respectively. 3. Taking possession of a city by the national forces was not, of itself, and without some actual seizure of it in obedience to the orders of the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Dexter v. Hall - 82 U.S. 9 (1872) U.S. Supreme Court Dexter v. Hall, 82 U.S. 15 Wall. 9 9 (1872) Dexter v. Hall 82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 9 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus 1. The power of attorney of a lunatic, or of one non compos mentis is void. 2. When evidence has been given tending to show the insanity of a grantor and other evidence tending to show his sanity, a medical expert cannot be asked his opinion respecting that person's sanity or insanity, forming his opinion from the facts and symptoms detailed in the evidence. 3. Such a witness may be asked his opinion upon a case hypothetically stated, or upon a case where the facts are certain and found, but he will not be allowed to determine from the evidence what the facts are and to give his opinion upon them. 4. Under the California statutes of limitations, a plaintiff in ejectment who has established a legal title in himself, is presumed to have had actual possession of the land within ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Walker v. Henshaw - 83 U.S. 436 (1872) U.S. Supreme Court Walker v. Henshaw, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 436 436 (1872) Walker v. Henshaw 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 436 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS Syllabus Prior to the 9th of July, 1858, when the President set apart the surplus of land which remained after the Shawnee Indians had obtained their complement under the treaty of the United States with them, ratified November 2, 1854, and opened such surplus to preemption and settlement, an Indian of the Wyandotte tribe could not locate "a float" held by him under the treaties of the United States made with his tribe October 5, 1842, and lst of March, 1855. Walker and others brought an action under the civil code of Kansas to try title to and get possession of a section of land in Douglas County, Kansas, being "parcel of the lands ceded to the United States by the Shawnee tribe of Indians by treaty ratified November 2, 1854, [ Footnote 1 ] and lying between the Missouri state line and a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
The Confederate Note Case - 86 U.S. 548 (1873) U.S. Supreme Court The Confederate Note Case, 86 U.S. 19 Wall. 548 548 (1873) The Confederate Note Case 86 U.S. (19 Wall.) 548 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Syllabus 1. Notes issued by the Confederate government having become the currency in which contracts were made and business conducted in the insurrectionary states during the recent civil war, and such notes having been designated by general custom as notes for so many "dollars," parol evidence is admissible, where suit is brought to enforce a contract payable in "dollars" and made during the war, to prove the above condition of things being first shown-that the term "dollars," as used in the contract, meant in fact Confederate notes. In the absence of such evidence, the presumption of law would be that by the term "dollars" the lawful currency of the United States was intended. Thorington v. Smith, 8 Wall. 1, explained. 2. The ordinance o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Tioga Railroad v. Blossburg & Corning Railroad - 87 U.S. 137 (1873) U.S. Supreme Court Tioga Railroad v. Blossburg & Corning Railroad, 87 U.S. 20 Wall. 137 137 (1873) Tioga Railroad v. Blossburg & Corning Railroad 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 137 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus 1. Where, in a judicial proceeding, the matter passed upon is the right under the language of a certain contract to take receipts on a railroad, the judgment concludes the question of the meaning of the contract on a suit for subsequent tolls received under the same contract. 2. The highest courts of New York, construing the statutes of limitations of that state, have decided that a foreign corporation cannot assail itself of them, and this notwithstanding such corporation was the lessee of a railroad in New York, and had property within the state, and a managing agent residing and keeping an office of the company. Page 87 U. S. 138 3. These decisions upon the construc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Wilson v. City Bank - 84 U.S. 473 (1873) U.S. Supreme Court Wilson v. City Bank, 84 U.S. 17 Wall. 473 473 (1873) Wilson v. City Bank 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 473 ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION IN OPINION BETWEEN THE JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Syllabus 1. Under a sound construction of the thirty-fifth and thirty-ninth sections of the Bankrupt Act, something more than passive nonresistance in an insolvent debtor is necessary to invalidate a judgment and levy on his property when the debt is due and he has no defense. 2. In such case, there is no legal obligation on the debtor to file a petition in bankruptcy to prevent the judgment and levy, and a failure to do so is not sufficient evidence of an intent to give a preference to the judgment creditor or to defeat the operation of the bankrupt law. 3. Though the judgment creditor in such a case may know the insolvent condition of the debtor, his judgment and levy upon his property are not therefore void, and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Mays v. Fritton - 87 U.S. 414 (1874) U.S. Supreme Court Mays v. Fritton, 87 U.S. 20 Wall. 414 414 (1874) Mays v. Fritton, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 414 (1874) 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 414 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus 1. Where the consideration of a question is prima facie within the jurisdiction and control of a state court -- such as determining to whom the surplus of a fund raised by the foreclosure of a mortgage belongs -- if the person who gave the mortgage becomes bankrupt and his assignee goes into the state court, submits to its jurisdiction, and nowhere asserts in any way the rights of the federal courts in the matter -- he cannot, after taking his chance for a decision in his favor, and getting one against him, raise in this Court the point of want of jurisdiction in the state court. 2. To authorize the assignee to recover the money or property under the thirty-ninth section of the Bankrupt Act, it is necessary that be should establish the act of the bank...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom232
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. We think that, even if the Legislature intended what Mr. Inverarity contends it did, it has not expressed that intention, and this would be a case of quod voluit non dixit. We also think, however, that it had no such intention. Where it wished to make a rule about the selection of jurors for the trial of European British subjects, we find it doing so in express terms in Section 35. If Mr. Inverarity's contention were well founded, that the Legislature did intend that a prisoner not being a European British subject should be tried by a jury, of which the majority should be other than Europeans or Americans or both, we should have expected, after reading Section 35, to find another section expressly conferring an equivalent right on persons not being European British subjects. There being no such section, it seems to us that the contrary inference to that for which Mr. Inverarity contends is the one that should be drawn from the express provisions of the Act. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Hotel Company v. Wade - 97 U.S. 13 (1877) U.S. Supreme Court Hotel Company v. Wade, 97 U.S. 13 (1877) Hotel Company v. Wade 97 U.S. 13 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA Syllabus 1. Bonds issued by a corporation in Nebraska, secured by a mortgage on its lands there situate, were held by citizens of another state, who, on default of the corporation to pay the interest represented by the coupons, applied to the trustee named to take possession of the lands, pursuant to the mortgage, and bring a foreclosure suit. On his refusal, they filed their bill Sept. 24, 1873, in the circuit court, against him, the corporation, and the other bond and coupon holders, all citizens of Nebraska, who refused to join in bringing suit. Held that the complainants had the right to file their bill, and that the court below had jurisdiction, although some of the respondents were joined as such solely on the ground that they had refused to unite with the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Gold Washing & Water Company v. Keyes - 96 U.S. 199 (1877) U.S. Supreme Court Gold Washing & Water Company v. Keyes, 96 U.S. 199 (1877) Gold Washing & Water Company v. Keyes 96 U.S. 199 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus 1. A petition for the removal of a suit from a state court to a federal court is insufficient unless it sets forth in due form, such as is required in good pleading, the essential facts not otherwise appearing in the case which, under the act of Congress, are conditions precedent to the change of jurisdiction. 2. A suit cannot be so removed, under the second section of the act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 475, simply because in its progress a construction of the Constitution or a law of the United States may be necessary unless it, in part at least, arises out of a controversy in regard to the operation and effect of some provision in that Constitution or law upon the facts involved. 3. As important question...
Tag this Judgment!