Court : US Supreme Court
Powell v. Pennsylvania - 127 U.S. 678 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U.S. 678 (1888) Powell v. Pennsylvania No. 914 Argued January 4, 1888 Decided April 9, 1888 127 U.S. 678 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was not designed to interfere with the exercise of the police power by the state for the protection of health, the prevention of fraud, and the preservation of the public morals. The prohibition of the manufacture out of oleaginous substances, or out of any compound thereof other than that produced from unadulterated milk or cream from unadulterated milk, of an article designed to take the place of butter or cheese produced from pure unadulterated milk or cream from unadulterated milk, or the prohibition upon the manufacture of any imitation or adulterated butter or cheese, or upon the selling or offering for sale, or having in possession with intent to sell, the same, as an article of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Callan v. Wilson - 127 U.S. 540 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court Callan v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540 (1888) Callan v. Wilson No. 1318 Argued January 18, 1888 Decided May 14, 1888 127 U.S. 540 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus The provision in Article III of the Constitution of the United States that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury" is to be construed in the light of the principles which at common law, determined whether or not a person accused of crime was entitled to be tried by a jury, and thus construed, it embraces not only felonies punishable by confinement in the penitentiary, but also some classes of misdemeanors the punishment of which may involve the deprivation of the liberty of the citizen. The provisions in the Constitution of the United States relating to trial by jury are in force in the District of Columbia. A person accused of a conspiracy to prevent another person from pursuing a lawful avoca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co. - 127 U.S. 265 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265 (1888) Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Company Original Argued April 25, 1887 Decided May 14, 1888 127 U.S. 265 ORIGINAL Syllabus This Court has not original jurisdiction of an action by a state upon a judgment recovered by it in one of its own courts against a citizen or a corporation of another state for a pecuniary penalty for a violation of its municipal law. This was an action of debt commenced in this Court by the State of Wisconsin against a corporation of Louisiana. The declaration was as follows: "The plaintiff, The State of Wisconsin and one of the states of the United States, now comes and complains of the defendant, The Pelican Insurance Company of New Orleans, a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Louisiana, in a plea of debt --" "For that whereas the plaintiff, the said State of Wisconsin, on the 16th day of September in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Stoutenburgh v. Hennick - 129 U.S. 141 (1889) U.S. Supreme Court Stoutenburgh v. Hennick, 129 U.S. 141 (1889) Stoutenburgh v. Hennick No. 722 Submitted December 18, 1888 Decided January 14, 1889 129 U.S. 141 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus Under the authority conferred upon Congress by 8, Article I, of the Constitution "to make all laws which shall be necessary or proper for carrying into execution" the power "to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over" the District of Columbia, Congress may constitute the District "a body corporate for municipal purposes," but can only authorize it to exercise municipal powers. The Act of the Legislative Assembly of the District of Columbia of August 23, 1871, as amended June 20, 1872, relating to license taxes on persons engaging in trade, business or profession within the District, was intended to be a regulation of a purely municipal character; but nevertheless the provision in claus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Norton v. Board of Tax Commissioners - 129 U.S. 479 (1889) U.S. Supreme Court Norton v. Board of Tax Commissioners, 129 U.S. 479 (1889) Norton v. Board of Commissioners of Taxing District of Brownsville No. 1442 Submitted January 4, 1889 Decided March 5, 1889 129 U.S. 479 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE Syllabus A valid power to issue its bonds in aid of railroads, conferred upon a municipal corporation of Tennessee by a statute of that state enacted while the Constitution of 1834-1835, was in force, not having been accepted and acted upon by the corporation at the time when the Constitution of 1810 came into operation, became subject to the conditions and prohibitions of article 2, 29 of that instrument, and could not be exercised without further legislation in conformity therewith. The substitution of a new state constitution for an old one abrogates the latter, and if the former contains provisions from the old cons...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Stewart v. Masterson - 131 U.S. 151 (1889) U.S. Supreme Court Stewart v. Masterson, 131 U.S. 151 (1889) Stewart v. Masterson No. 287 Argued April 25, 1889 Decided May 13, 1889 131 U.S. 151 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Syllabus A demurrer to a bill in equity cannot introduce as its support new facts which do not appear on the face of the bill, and which must be set up by plea or answer. Where there is matter in the bill which is properly pleaded, and is properly Page 131 U. S. 152 ground for equitable relief, and requires an answer or a plea, a demurrer to the whole bill will be overruled. Where a bill is taken as confessed by one of two defendants before a decree is made dismissing the bill on demurrer as to the other defendant, the latter can appeal from the decree although it does not dispose of the case as to his codefendant. In equity. Decree dismissing the bill. The case is stated in the opinion of the court....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
In re Neagle - 135 U.S. 1 (1890) U.S. Supreme Court In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890) In re Neagle * No. 1472 Argued March 4, 5, 1890 Decided April 14, 1890 135 U.S. 1 Syllabus An appeal from the decision of a Circuit Court of the United States in a habeas corpus case, under Rev.Stat. 764, as amended by the act of March 3, 1885, 23 Stat. 437, c. 353, brings up the whole case, both law and facts, and imposes upon this court the duty of reexamining it, upon the full record as it was heard in the inferior court. A person who is in custody for an act done or omitted in pursuance of a law of the United States, or of an order, process or decree of a court, or judge thereof, or is in custody in violation of the Constitution, or a law or treaty of the United States, may, under the provisions of Rev.Stat. 753, be brought before any court of the United States, or justice or judge thereof, by writ of habeas corpus, for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of his detention, and the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Leisy v. Hardin - 135 U.S. 100 (1890) U.S. Supreme Court Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100 (1890) Leisy v. Hardin No. 1459 Submitted January 6, 1890 Decided April 28, 1890 135 U.S. 100 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IOWA Syllabus A statute of a state prohibiting the sale of any intoxicating liquors except for pharmaceutical, medicinal, chemical, or sacramental purposes and under a license from a county court of the state is, as applied to a sale by the importer, and in the original packages or kegs, unbroken and unopened, of such liquors manufactured in and brought from another state, unconstitutional and void as repugnant to the clause of the Constitution granting to Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states. Peirce v. New Hampshire, 5 How. 504, overruled. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, on behalf of the Court, stated the case as follows: Christine Leisy, Edward Leisy, Lena and Albert Leisy, composing the firm of Gus. L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
McGahey v. Virginia - 135 U.S. 662 (1890) U.S. Supreme Court McGahey v. Virginia, 135 U.S. 662 (1890) McGahey v. Virginia Nos. 1057, 1055, 1056, 1058, 1142, 1217, 1216, 23 Argued January 21, 1890 Decided May 19, 1890 135 U.S. 662 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA Syllabus The decisions Hartman v. Greenhow, 102 U. S. 672 ; Antoni v. Greenhow, 107 U. S. 769 ; Virginia Coupon Cases, 114 U. S. 269 ; Barry v. Edmunds, 116 U. S. 550 ; Chaffin v. Taylor, 116 U. S. 567 ; Royall v. Virginia, 116 U. S. 572 ; Sands v. Edmunds, 116 U. S. 585 ; Royall v. Virginia, 121 U. S. 102 ; In re Ayers, In re Scott and In re McCabe, 123 U. S. 443 , are reviewed, and, without committing the Court to all that has been said or even all that has been adjudged in those cases on the subject of the Act of the Legislature of Virginia of March 30, 1871, to provide for the funding and payment of the public debt, and the issue of coupon bonds of the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Butler v. Gage - 138 U.S. 52 (1891) U.S. Supreme Court Butler v. Gage, 138 U.S. 52 (1891) Butler v. Gage No. 1342 Submitted January 5, 1891 Decided January 19, 1891 138 U.S. 52 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF COLORADO Syllabus It is to be presumed that when a writ of error is filed here from Colorado, signed (the Chief Justice being absent) by a judge who styles himself "Presiding judge of the Supreme Court" of that state, that he acts in that capacity in the absence of the chief justice, and in accordance with the provisions of the constitution of the state, and that the writ was properly allowed. The petition for a writ of error is not part of the record on which this Court acts. When a case is presented for the determination of the highest court of a state without a suggestion that a federal question is involved, and after decision a petition for a rehearing, containing no such suggestion, is presented and denied, a denial of a motion for further oral argume...
Tag this Judgment!