Court : US Supreme Court
Piqua Brance of State Bank of Ohio v. Knoop - 57 U.S. 369 (1853) U.S. Supreme Court Piqua Brance of State Bank of Ohio v. Knoop, 57 U.S. 16 How. 369 369 (1853) Piqua Brance of State Bank of Ohio v. Knoop 57 U.S. (16 How.) 369 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Syllabus In 1845, the Legislature of Ohio passed a general banking law, the fifty-ninth section of which required the officers to make semiannual dividends, and the sixtieth required them to set off six percent of such dividends for the use of the state, which sum or amount so set off should be in lieu of all taxes to which the company, or the stockholders therein, would otherwise be subject. This was a contract fixing the amount of taxation, and not a law prescribing a rule of taxation until changed by the legislature. In 1851, an act was passed entitled "An act to tax banks, and bank and other stocks, the same as property is now taxable by the laws of this state." The operation of this law being to increase the tax, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Company - 59 U.S. 421 (1855) U.S. Supreme Court Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Company, 59 U.S. 18 How. 421 421 (1855) Pennsylvania v. Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company 59 U.S. (18 How.) 421 ORIGINAL Syllabus The power of Congress to regulate commerce includes the regulation of intercourse and navigation, and consequently the power to determine what shall or shall not be deemed, in judgment of law, an obstruction of navigation. The provisions of the Act of Congress passed August 31, 1852, 10 Stat. 112, in its 6th and 7th sections declaring the bridges over the Ohio River at Wheeling and Bridgeport to be lawful structures at their then height and position and requiring the officers and crews of vessels navigating the Ohio River to regulate their vessels so as not to interfere with the elevation and construction of said bridges are within the legitimate exercise by Congress of its constitutional power to regulate commerce. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Scott v. Sandford - 60 U.S. 393 (1856) U.S. Supreme Court Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 19 How. 393 393 (1856) Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 Syllabus I 1. Upon a writ of error to a Circuit Court of the United States, the transcript of the record of all the proceedings in the case is brought before the court, and is open to inspection and revision. 2. When a plea to the jurisdiction, in abatement, is overruled by the court upon demurrer, and the defendant pleads in bar, and upon these pleas the final judgment of the court is in his favor -- if the plaintiff brings a writ of error, the judgment of the court upon the plea in abatement is before this court, although it was in favor of the plaintiff -- and if the court erred in overruling it, the judgment must be reversed, and a mandate issued to the Circuit Court to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction. 3. In the Circuit Courts of the United States, the record must show that the case is one in which, by the Constituti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Buttz v. Northern Pacific Railroad - 119 U.S. 55 (1856) U.S. Supreme Court Buttz v. Northern Pacific Railroad, 119 U.S. 55 (1886) Buttz v. Northern Pacific Railroad Argued October 26-27, 1886 Decided November 15, 1856 119 U.S. 55 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF DAKOTA Syllabus The grant by the Act of Congress of July 2, 1864, to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company of lands to which the Indian title had not been extinguished operated to convey the fee to the company, subject to the right of occupancy by the Indians. The manner, time, and conditions of extinguishing such right of occupancy were exclusively matters for the consideration of the government, and could not be interfered with nor put in contest by private parties. The agreement of the Sisseton and Wahpeton bands of Dakota or Sioux Indians for the relinquishment of their title was accepted on the part of the United States when it was approved by the Secretary of the Interior on the 19th of June,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Jackson v. The Magnolia - 61 U.S. 296 (1857) U.S. Supreme Court Jackson v. The Magnolia, 61 U.S. 20 How. 296 296 (1857) Jackson v. The Magnolia 61 U.S. (20 How.) 296 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA Syllabus The admiralty jurisdiction of the courts of the United States extends to cases of collision upon navigable waters although the place of such collision may be within the body of a county of a state, and may be above the flux and reflux of the tide. The district courts exercise this jurisdiction over fresh water rivers "navigable from the sea" by virtue of the Judiciary Act of 1789, and not as conferred by the act of 1845, which extends their jurisdiction to the Great Lakes and waters "not navigable from the sea." This case came up on an appeal from the judgment of the district court dismissing the libel for want of jurisdiction after the following agreement had been filed: "Be it remembered that on the trial of this c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Gaines v. Hennen - 65 U.S. 553 (1860) U.S. Supreme Court Gaines v. Hennen, 65 U.S. 553 (1860) Gaines v. Hennen 65 U.S. 553 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Syllabus Since the case of Mrs. Gaines was before this Court, as reported in 53 U. S. 12 How. 537, the olographic will made by Daniel Clark in 1813 was ordered by the Supreme Court of Louisiana to be admitted to probate notwithstanding its loss. The judgment of the supreme court of that state is coincident with the conclusions of this Court upon the testimony which related to the execution by Mr. Clark of his olographic will of 1813 and of the concealment or destruction of it after his death. This will declared Mrs. Gaines to be his legitimate and only daughter, and universal legatee. In the bill filed by Mrs. Gaines to recover the property sold by the executors appointed by a former will of 1811, it was not necessary to make these executors parties. The reasons s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Gilman v. City of Sheboygan - 67 U.S. 510 (1862) U.S. Supreme Court Gilman v. City of Sheboygan, 67 U.S. 2 Black 510 510 (1862) Gilman v. City of Sheboygan 67 U.S. (2 Black) 510 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN Syllabus 1. Where a state Legislature authorizes a city to borrow money, issue bonds and tax all the property in the city to pay it, this is not a contract with the bondholders, that the state shall not afterwards exercise her power to modify the taxation or exempt portions of the property from taxation. 2. The fact that a state, by an act of her legislature, has stripped herself of any portion of her sovereignty is not to be assumed unless the language used is too clear to admit of doubt. 3. If such a contract existed and if a subsequent law exempted some portion of the property, it does not lie in the mouth of a property holder in the city to complain of it on the score of bad faith to the bondholders if the bondholde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Castillero - 67 U.S. 17 (1862) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Castillero, 67 U.S. 2 Black 17 17 (1862) United States v. Castillero 7 U.S. (2 Black) 17 APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus 1. Paredes, president of Mexico from 15 December, 1845, until 29 July, 1846, exercised extraordinary powers, but it is not certain that such of his acts as violated the law were ever ratified. Semble that such ratification was necessary to make his acts valid as against the government. 2. Conceding the power of the acting president of the republic to make a grant of land in California, the several documents attesting any supposed grant are to be examined with care, since it thus becomes a question of construction whether it was or was not intended to be a grant. 3. A party asserting that he had discovered and denounced a valuable mine in California presented a memorial to the Junta de Mineria asking a loan of money and ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Steamship Company v. Joliffe - 69 U.S. 450 (1864) U.S. Supreme Court Steamship Company v. Joliffe, 69 U.S. 2 Wall. 450 450 (1864) Steamship Company v. Joliffe 69 U.S. (2 Wall.) 450 ERROR TO THE COUNTY COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Syllabus 1. When a right has arisen upon a contract or a transaction in the nature of a contract authorized by statute and has been so far perfected that nothing remains to be done by the party asserting it, the repeal of the statute does not affect it or an action for its enforcement. It has become a vested right, which stands independent of the statute. Ex. gr., where a pilot, licensed under a statute, had tendered his services to pilot a vessel out of port and such services were refused, his claim to the half-pilotage fees, allowed by the statute in such cases, became perfect, and the subsequent repeal of the statute does not affect a judgment rendered in an action brought to recover the claim, or the jurisdiction of this Court t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
The Fossat or Quicksilver Mine Case - 69 U.S. 649 (1864) U.S. Supreme Court The Fossat or Quicksilver Mine Case, 69 U.S. 2 Wall. 649 649 (1864) The Fossat or Quicksilver Mine Case 69 U.S. (2 Wall.) 649 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT FOR CALIFORNIA Syllabus 1. An appeal lies to this Court from a decree of the District Court for California, in a proceeding under the act of 14th of June, 1860, 12 Statutes at Large 33, commonly called the Survey Law. 2. If no appeal from such a decree be taken by the United States, they may appear in this Court as appellees, but cannot demand a reversal or change of the decree. 3. If a California land claim has been confirmed by a decree of the district court under the act of 3d of March, 1851, 9 Statutes at Large 631, and the decree of confirmation fixing the boundaries of the tract stands unreversed, a survey under it is the execution of that decree, and must conform to it in all respects. 4. The Survey Law of 14th of June, 1860, gives the di...
Tag this Judgment!