Court : US Supreme Court
Edwards v. Elliott - 88 U.S. 532 (1874) U.S. Supreme Court Edwards v. Elliott, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 532 532 (1874) Edwards v. Elliott 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 532 ERROR TO THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Syllabus 1. Where the record before the court on a case from a state court shows a declaration, pleas to it, issue on them, verdict on those issues, and judgment on the verdict, without allusion to any demurrer, the court will not refer to opinions in books of printed reports of the state court to contradict the record and to show that there was a demurrer to the declaration and that judgment overruling the demurrer was given. [It was stated in this case by counsel that the demurrer after judgment against it had been withdrawn.] 2. Where a record brought regularly to this Court on a writ of error and appeal bond which operate as a supersedeas shows a judgment quite intelligible and possible, and where a return to a certiorari issued, without prejudice, long a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Minor v. Happersett - 88 U.S. 162 (1874) U.S. Supreme Court Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874) Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI Syllabus 1. The word "citizen " is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation. 2. In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United states, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since. 3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had. 4. At the time of the adoption of that amendment, suffrage was not coextensive with the citizenship of the states; nor was it at the time of the ad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Long v. Converse - 91 U.S. 105 (1875) U.S. Supreme Court Long v. Converse, 91 U.S. 105 (1875) Long v. Converse 91 U.S. 105 ERROR TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus 1. This Court has no jurisdiction to review the decision of a state court against a right and a title under a statute of the United States unless such right and title be specially set up and claimed by the party for himself, and not for a third person under whom he does not claim. 2. So far as it relates to the above point, sec. 709 of the Revised Statutes, which authorizes this Court, in certain cases, to reexamine upon a writ of error the judgment or decree of a state court, does not differ from the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789. 3. Former decisions of this Court upon said twenty-fifth section cited and examined. Page 91 U. S. 106 On the 20th of July, 1870, a bill was filed in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts for the foreclosure of a mortgage, ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Leavenworth, Lawrence & Galveston R. Co. v. United States - 92 U.S. 733 (1875) U.S. Supreme Court Leavenworth, Lawrence & Galveston R. Co. v. United States, 92 U.S. 733 (1875) Leavenworth, Lawrence & Galveston Railroad Company v. United States 92 U.S. 733 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Syllabus 1. Where rights claimed under the United States are set up against it, they must be so clearly defined that there can be no question of the purpose of Congress to confer them. 2. The rule announced in the former decisions of this Court that a grant by the United states is strictly construed against the grantee applies as well to grants to a state to aid in building railroads as to one granting special privileges to a private corporation. 3. The doctrine in Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Pet. 498, that a tract lawfully appropriated to any purpose becomes thereafter severed from the mass of public lands and that no subsequent law or proclamation w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Forty-three Gallons of Whiskey - 93 U.S. 188 (1876) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Forty-three Gallons of Whiskey, 93 U.S. 188 (1876) United States v. Forty-three Gallons of Whiskey 93 U.S. 188 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Syllabus 1. Congress, under its constitutional power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes, may not only prohibit the unlicensed introduction and sale of spirituous liquors in the "Indian country," but extend such prohibition to territory in proximity to that occupied by Indians. 2. It is competent for the United States, in the exercise of the treatymaking power, to stipulate in a treaty with an Indian tribe that, within the territory thereby ceded, the laws of the United States then or thereafter enacted prohibiting the introduction and sale of spirituous liquors in the Indian country shall be in full force and effect until otherwise directed by Congress or the President of the Un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Lake Superior & Mississippi R. Co. v. United States - 93 U.S. 442 (1876) U.S. Supreme Court Lake Superior & Mississippi R. Co. v. United States, 93 U.S. 442 (1876) Lake Superior and Mississippi Railroad Company v. United States 93 U.S. 442 APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus 1. A provision in an act of Congress granting lands to aid in the construction of a railroad that "said railroad shall be and remain a public highway for the use of the government of the United States free from all toll or other charge for the transportation of any property or troops of the United States" secures to the government the free use of the road, but does not entitle the government to have troops or property transported over the road by the railroad company free of charge for transporting the same. 2. Where, throughout an act of Congress, a railroad is referred to, in its character as a road, as a permanent structure, and designated and required to be a public highway, the term "railroad"...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Insurance Company v. Boon - 95 U.S. 117 (1877) U.S. Supreme Court Insurance Company v. Boon, 95 U.S. 117 (1877) Insurance Company v. Boon 95 U.S. 117 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Syllabus 1. Where the issues are tried by the court, its finding belongs to the record as fully as does the verdict of a jury. 2. Where the court tried the issues of fact, and its opinion, embodying its findings and the conclusions of law thereon, was filed concurrently with the entry of the judgment, but there was no formal finding of facts, and the court, at the next following term, upon a rule awarded, and, after hearing the parties, made an order that a special finding, with the conclusions of law conformable to that opinion so filed, be entered nunc pro tunc, and made part of the record as of the term when the judgment was rendered, held that the order was within the discretion of the court, and that by it such special finding became a part ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Bates v. Clark - 95 U.S. 204 (1877) U.S. Supreme Court Bates v. Clark, 95 U.S. 204 (1877) Bates v. Clark 95 U.S. 204 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF DAKOTA Syllabus 1. In the absence of any different provision by treaty or by act of Congress, all the country described by the first section of the Act of June 30, 1834, 4 Stat. 729, as Indian country, remains such only as long as the Indians retain their title to the soil. 2. Whatever may be the rule in time of war and in the presence of actual hostilities, military officers can no more protect themselves than civilians for wrongs committed in time of peace under orders emanating from a source which is itself without authority in the premises. Hence a military officer, seizing liquors supposed to be in Indian country when they are not, is liable to an action as a trespasser. 3. The difference between the value of the goods so seized at the place where they were taken and the place where they were returned to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Shields v. Ohio - 95 U.S. 319 (1877) U.S. Supreme Court Shields v. Ohio, 95 U.S. 319 (1877) Shields v. Ohio 95 U.S. 319 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OHIO Syllabus 1. The consolidation, pursuant to the statute of Ohio of April 10, 1856, 4 Curwen 2791, of two or more railway companies works their dissolution. All the powers and franchises of the new company which is thereby formed are derived from that statute, and are subject to "be altered, revoked, or repealed by the general assembly," under sec. 2, art. 1, of the constitution of that state, which took effect Sept. 1, 1851. 2. The general assembly does not, therefore, impair the obligation of a contract by prescribing the rates for the transportation of passengers by the new company, although one of the original companies was, prior to the adoption of that constitution, organized under a charter which imposed no limitation as to such rates. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Pennoyer v. Neff - 95 U.S. 714 (1878) U.S. Supreme Court Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878) Pennoyer v. Neff 95 U.S. 714 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON Syllabus 1. A statute of Oregon, after providing for service of summons upon parties or their representatives, personally or at their residence, declares that, when service cannot be thus made, and the defendant, after due diligence, cannot be found within the State, and "that fact appears, by affidavit, to the satisfaction of the court or judge thereof, and it, in like manner, appears that a cause of action exists against the defendant, or that he is a proper party to an action relating to real property in the State, such court or judge may grant an order that the service be made by publication of summons . . . when the defendant is not a resident of the State, but has property therein, and the court has jurisdiction of the subject of the action," -- the order to designate a news...
Tag this Judgment!