Court : US Supreme Court
In re Debs - 158 U.S. 564 (1885) U.S. Supreme Court In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564 (1895) In re Debs No. 11 Argued March 5, 26, 1895 Decided May 7, 1885 158 U.S. 564 ORIGINAL Syllabus The order of the Circuit Court finding the petitioner guilty of contempt and sentencing them to imprisonment was not a final judgment or decree. The government of the United States has jurisdiction over every foot of soil within its territory, and acts directly upon each citizen. While it is a government of enumerated powers, it has full attributes of sovereignty within the limits of those powers, among which are the Page 158 U. S. 565 power over interstate commerce and the power over the transmission of the mails. The powers thus conferred are not dormant, but have been assumed and put into practical exercise by Congressional legislation. In the exercise of those powers, the United States may remove everything put upon highways, natural or artificial, to obstruct the passage of interstate comme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Louisville Gas Co. v. Citizens' Gas Co. - 115 U.S. 683 (1885) U.S. Supreme Court Louisville Gas Co. v. Citizens' Gas Co., 115 U.S. 683 (1885) Louisville Gas Company v. Citizens' Gas Company Submitted November 2, 1885 Decided December 7, 1885 115 U.S. 683 I N ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KENTUCKY Syllabus The legislative grant of an exclusive right to supply gas to a municipality and its inhabitants by means of pipes and mains laid through the public streets and upon condition of the performance of the service by the grantee, is a grant of a franchise vested in the state in consideration of the performance of a public service, and, after performance by the grantee, is a contract protected by the Constitution of the United States against state legislation to impair it. In granting the exclusive franchise to supply gas to a municipality and its inhabitants, a state legislature does not part with the police power and duty of protecting the public health, the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Ex parte Royall - 117 U.S. 241 (1886) U.S. Supreme Court Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241 (1886) Ex parte Royall Argued January 7, 8, 1886 Decided March 1, 1886 117 U.S. 241 APPEALS FROM AND ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Syllabus Circuit Courts of the United States have jurisdiction on habeas corpus to discharge from custody a person who is restrained of his liberty in violation of the Constitution of the United States but who, at the time, is held under State process for trial on an indictment charging him with an offence against the laws of the State. When a person is in custody under process from a State court of original jurisdiction for an alleged offence against the laws of such State, and it is claimed that he is restrained of his liberty in violation of the Constitution of the United States, the Circuit Court of the United States has a discretion whether it will discharge him in advance of his trial in the court in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Reynolds v. Iron Silver Mining Co. - 116 U.S. 687 (1886) U.S. Supreme Court Reynolds v. Iron Silver Mining Co., 116 U.S. 687 (1886) Reynolds v. Iron Silver Mining Company Submitted January 4, 1886 Decided March 1, 1886 116 U.S. 687 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Syllabus In procuring a patent for a placer mine claim under 2333 of the Revised Statutes, where the claimant is also in possession of a lode or vein included within the boundaries of his placer claim, the patent shall cover both, if he makes this known and pays $ 5 per acre for twenty-five feet on each side of his vein, and $2.50 per acre for the remainder of his placer claim. Where no such vein or lode is known to exist, the patent for a placer claim shall carry all such veins or lodes within its boundaries which may be afterwards found to exist under its surface. But where a vein or lode is known to exist under the surface included in such patent, and is not in clai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Doolan v. Carr - 125 U.S. 618 (1887) U.S. Supreme Court Doolan v. Carr, 125 U.S. 618 (1887) Doolan v. Carr No. 34 Argued October 24-25, 1887 Decided November 21, 1887 125 U.S. 618 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus The proper Circuit Court of the United States has jurisdiction, irrespective of the citizenship of the parties, of an action in ejectment, in which the controversy turns upon the validity of a patent of land from the United States. Want of power in an officer of the Land Office to issue a land patent may be shown in an action at law by extrinsic evidence, although the patent may be issued with all the forms of law required for a patent of public land. Land within the limits of a valid Mexican grant (which grant was sub judice when the grant of public land in aid of the Pacific Railroads was made by the Act of July 1, 1862, as amended July 2, 1864, and March 3, 1865), if found after the location of the railr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Sabariego v. Maverick - 124 U.S. 261 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court Sabariego v. Maverick, 124 U.S. 261 (1888) Sabariego v. Maverick Argued November 11, 14, 1887 Decided January 23, 1888 124 U.S. 261 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Syllabus When a government officer, acting under authority of law and in accordance with its forms, conveys to an individual a tract of land as land of the government, the deed will pass only such title as the government has therein, and there is no presumption of law that it is a valid title. Under the provisions of Spanish law in force in Mexico in 1814-1817, confiscation of property as a punishment for the crime of treason could only be effected by regular judicial proceedings, and, it being once declared, the property remained subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the intendants, both in ordering sale and in taking cognizance of controversies raised concerning it. There is no legal presumption ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Chicago v. Taylor - 125 U.S. 161 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court Chicago v. Taylor, 125 U.S. 161 (1888) Chicago v. Taylor No. 151 Submitted January 31, 1888 Decided March 19, 1888 125 U.S. 161 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus Under the provision in the Constitution of the Illinois adopted in 1870 that "private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation," a recovery may be had in all cases where private property has sustained a substantial injury from the making and use of an improvement that is public in its character, whether the damage be direct, as when caused by trespass or physical invasion of the property, or consequential as in a diminution of its market value. Trespass on the case. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant sued out this writ of error. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court. Page 125 U. S. 162 MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, after stating the facts in the foregoing l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1888)ILR15Cal461
Wilson, J.1. We must take the facts before us to be that the plaintiff is the owner of a piece of land, that the substantial defendant alleges that that piece of land forms part of a public highway, that he took proceedings before the Magistrate under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the plaintiff for obstruction to the alleged highway, and that an order absolute was made by the Magistrate under Section 137 directing the removal of the obstruction. The present suit has been brought practically for the purpose of obtaining a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the land free from any right of highway. The questions referred to us are these:[His Lordship here read the questions referred and continued.]2. It seems convenient to examine this matter under two separate heads, and to consider first whether, upon general principles, the present suit, either in its existing form or with any modifications, can lie, and what relief, if any, can be given in it; and, sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Hill v. Harding - 130 U.S. 699 (1889) U.S. Supreme Court Hill v. Harding, 130 U.S. 699 (1889) Hill v. Harding No. 253 Submitted April 16, 1889 Decided May 13, 1889 130 U.S. 699 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Syllabus If an attachment of property in an action in a state court is dissolved by the defendant's entering into a recognizance, with sureties, to pay, within ninety days after any final judgment against him, the amount of that judgment, and the defendant, after verdict against him, obtains his discharge in bankruptcy upon proceedings commenced more than four months after the attachment; the Bankrupt Act does not prevent the state court from rendering judgment against him on the verdict, with a perpetual stay of execution, so as to leave the plaintiff at liberty to proceed against the sureties. Page 130 U. S. 700 This was an action of assumpsit commenced by Harding and others against Hill in an inferior court of the State of Illinois, in accordan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Clough v. Curtis - 134 U.S. 361 (1890) U.S. Supreme Court Clough v. Curtis, 134 U.S. 361 (1890) Clough v. Curtis Nos. 1133, 1134 Argued January 27-28, 1890 Decided March 17, 1890 134 U.S. 361 APPEALS FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF IDAHO Syllabus The jurisdiction of the several courts of the Territory of Idaho is a rightful subject of legislation by the territorial legislature. An act of the territorial legislature conferring upon the supreme court of the territory original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandate, review, prohibition, habeas corpus and all writs necessary to its appellate jurisdiction is not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or with any act of Congress. Section 1910 of the Revised Statutes does not forbid a territorial legislature from conferring original jurisdiction upon the supreme court of the territory in such cases. This Court has jurisdiction over judgments of a territorial court: (1) denying an application for a w...
Tag this Judgment!