Court : US Supreme Court
Shoemaker v. United States - 147 U.S. 282 (1893) U.S. Supreme Court Shoemaker v. United States, 147 U.S. 282 (1893) Shoemaker v. United States No. 1197 Argued November 28-29, 1892 Decided January 1B, 1893 147 U.S. 282 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus Land taken in a city for public parks and squares by authority of law, is taken for a public use. The extent to which such property shall be taken for such use rests wholly in legislative discretion, subject only to the restraint that just compensation must be made. The proviso in the Maryland act of cession of the District of Columbia, that Page 147 U. S. 283 nothing therein contained should be "so construed to vest in the United States any right of property in the soil, as to affect the right of individuals therein, otherwise than the same shall or may be transferred by such individuals to the United States" has no reference to the power of eminent domain which belongs to the United States...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Baugh - 149 U.S. 368 (1893) U.S. Supreme Court Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Baugh, 149 U.S. 368 (1893) Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. Baugh No. 89 Argued December 9, 12, 1893 149 U.S. 368 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Syllabus Whether the engineer and fireman of a locomotive engine, running alone on a railroad and without any train attached are fellow servants of the company, so as to preclude the latter from recovering from the company for injuries caused by the negligence of the former is not a question of local law, to be settled by the decisions of the highest court of the state Page 149 U. S. 369 in which a cause of action arises, but is one of general law, to be determined by a reference to all the authorities, and a consideration of the principles underlying the relations of master and servant. Such engineer and such fireman, when engaged on such duty are, when so considered, fellow ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Old Settlers - 148 U.S. 427 (1893) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Old Settlers, 148 U.S. 427 (1893) United States v. Old Settlers Nos. 1031, 1032 Argued December 13-14, 1892 Decided April 3, 1893 148 U.S. 427 APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus Finding of facts by the Court of Claims, in a suit which Congress has authorized it to take jurisdiction of in equity, may be reviewed by this court. Congress has not authorized the courts in this litigation to go behind the Treaty of August 6, 1846, 9 Stat. 871, with the Cherokee Nation. So far as there is a conflict between the treaties with the Cherokees and subsequent acts of Congress, the latter must prevail. The contention made by the Western Cherokees as to the ownership of land to the west of the Mississippi was put to rest by the treaty of 1846, and cannot now be revived. The rule that when a party, without force or intimidation and with a full knowledge of all the facts in the case, accepts on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
In re Tyler - 149 U.S. 164 (1893) U.S. Supreme Court In re Tyler, 149 U.S. 164 (1893) In re Tyler No. 17 Original Argued April 4, 1893 Decided April 24, 1893 149 U.S. 164 ORIGINAL Syllabus Property within a state which is in the possession of a receiver by virtue of his appointment as such by a circuit court of the United States is not subject to seizure and levy under process issuing from a court of the state to enforce the collection of a tax assessed upon its owner under the laws of the state. The exclusive remedy of the state tax collector in such case is in the circuit court which appointed the receiver, where the question of the validity of the tax may be heard and determined and where the priority of payment of such amount as may be found to be due which is granted by the laws of the state will be recognized and enforced. The writ of habeas corpus is not to be used to perform the office of a writ of error, or of an appeal. When no writ of error or appeal will lie, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Mexican Central Ry. Co. v. Pinkney - 149 U.S. 194 (1893) U.S. Supreme Court Mexican Central Ry. Co. v. Pinkney, 149 U.S. 194 (1893) Mexican Central Railway Company v. Pinkney No. 1199 Submitted April 17, 1893 Decided May 1, 1893 149 U.S. 194 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Syllabus To give a circuit court of the United States jurisdiction on the ground of diverse citizenship, the facts showing the requisite diverse citizenship must appear in such papers as properly constitute the record of the case. The refusal by the trial court, during the progress of the trial, of leave to file a plea on the question of the plaintiff's citizenship and to permit issue Page 149 U. S. 195 to be joined thereon is within the discretion of that court, and is not reviewable here. A person in charge of a joint railroad warehouse in a railroad center in Texas, the property of one of several companies which unite in bearing the expense of maint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Hill v. United States - 149 U.S. 593 (1893) U.S. Supreme Court Hill v. United States, 149 U.S. 593 (1893) Hill v. United States No. 108 Argued and submitted January 6, 1893 Decided May 10, 1893 149 U.S. 593 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Syllabus A claim by a person asserting title in land under tidewater, for damages for the use and occupation thereof by the United States for the erection and maintenance of a lighthouse, without his consent and without compensation to him, but not showing that the United States have acknowledged any right of property in him as against them, is a case sounding in tort of which the circuit court of the United States has no jurisdiction under the Act of March 3, 1887, c. 359. The case is stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court. This was a suit, brought November 1, 1888, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland under the Act of Mar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Carr v. Quigley - 149 U.S. 652 (1893) U.S. Supreme Court Carr v. Quigley, 149 U.S. 652 (1893) Carr v. Quigley Argued April 26-27, 1893 Decided May 15, 1893 149 U.S. 652 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus Lands within the exterior limits of a Mexican grant, sub judice at the date of the definite location of the Central Pacific railroad, were not "reserved" within the meaning of that word as used in section three of the Act of July 1, 1862, 12 Stat. 459, c. 120, but inured to the road as a portion of its land grant and were properly patented to it as such. Newhall v. Sanger, 92 U. S. 761 , explained. United States v. McLaughlin, 127 U. S. 428 , approved. This was an action of ejectment brought by W. B. Carr against John Quigley for the possession of one hundred and sixty acres of land situated in the County of Alameda, State of California. The land is a portion of an unnumbered odd section granted to the Central Pacific Railroad Company of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Bryan v. Board of Education - 151 U.S. 639 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court Bryan v. Board of Education, 151 U.S. 639 (1894) Bryan v. Board of Education of Kentucky Conference of Methodist Episcopal Church, South No. 134 Argued and submitted December 8, 1893 Decided February 5, 1894 151 U.S. 639 ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KENTUCKY Syllabus The citizens of Millersburg, Kentucky, raised a fund for the purpose of establishing a collegiate institute in that place or its vicinity, and invited the Kentucky Annual Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, to take charge of it when established. The invitation was accepted, and the legislature of the state incorporated the institute by an act, one provision in which was a reservation to the legislature of the right to amend or repeal it. Large additions were then made to the fund from other sources, and in 1860 another act was passed incorporating the Board of Education of that Conference of the Methodist Chu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Shively v. Bowlby - 152 U.S. 1 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1 (1894) Shively v. Bowlby No. 787 Submitted December 2, 1892 Decided March 5, 1894 152 U.S. 1 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON Syllabus This court has jurisdiction to review by writ of error a judgment of the highest court of the State of Oregon deciding that a donation land claim under the act of Congress of September 27, 1850, c. 76, of land bounded by tidewater, passed no title or right below high water mark, as against a subsequent grant from the state. By the common law, the title in the soil of the sea, or of arms of the sea, below high water mark, except so far as private rights in it have been acquired by express grant, or by prescription or usage, is in the King, subject to the public rights of navigation and fishing, and no one can erect a building or wharf upon it, without license. Upon the American Revolution, the title and the dominion of the tidewaters and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Lawton v. Steele - 152 U.S. 133 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133 (1894) Lawton v. Steele No. 203 Submitted January 17, 1894 Decided March 6, 1894 152 U.S. 133 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Syllabus It is within the power of a State to preserve from extinction fisheries in waters within its jurisdiction by prohibiting exhaustive methods of fishing, or the use of such destructive instruments as are likely to result in the extermination of the young as well as the mature fish. The provision in the statutes of New York. c. 591 of the Laws of 1880, as amended by c. 317 of the Laws of 1883, that nets set or maintained upon waters of the state or on the shores of or islands in such waters in violation of the statutes of the state enacted for the protection of fish, may be summarily destroyed by any person, and that it shall be the duty of certain officers to abate, remove, and forthwith destroy them, and that no action for damages sha...
Tag this Judgment!