Court : US Supreme Court
Civil Rights Cases - 109 U.S. 3 (1883) U.S. Supreme Court Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) Civil Rights Cases Submitted October Term, 1882 Decided October 16th, 1888 109 U.S. 3 ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Syllabus 1. The 1st and 2d sections of the Civil Rights Act passed March 1st, 1876, are unconstitutional enactments as applied to the several States, not being authorized either by the XIIIth or XIVth Amendments of the Constitution. 2. The XIVth Amendment is prohibitory upon the States only, and the legislation authorized to be adopted by Congress for enforcing it is not direct legislation on the matters respecting which the States are prohibited from making or enforcing certain laws, or doing certain acts, but is corrective legislation such as may be necessary or proper for counteracting and redressing the effect of such laws or acts. Page 109 U. S. 4 The XIIIth Amendment relates only to slavery ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Harris - 106 U.S. 629 (1883) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883) United States v. Harris Decided January 22, 1883 106 U.S. 629 ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION BETWEEN JUDGES OF CIRCUIT COURT OF UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE Syllabus 1. The omission to state, in the certificate of division of opinion between the judges of the circuit court in a criminal proceeding, that the point of difference is certified "upon the request of either party or their counsel," is not fatal to the jurisdiction of this Court where such request can be fairly inferred. 2. Section 5519 of the Revised Statutes ( post, p. 106 U. S. 632 ) is unconstitutional. At the November Term, 1876, of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Tennessee, an indictment, based on sec. 5519 of the Revised Statutes, was returned by the grand jury against one R. G. Harris and nineteen others. The indictment contained four counts....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Ex Parte Wall - 107 U.S. 265 (1883) U.S. Supreme Court Ex Parte Wall, 107 U.S. 265 (1883) Ex Parte Wall Decided April 16, 1883 107 U.S. 265 PETITION FOR MANDAMUS Syllabus A rule was made by the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida, which, after reciting that it had come to the knowledge of the court that W., an attorney of the court, did, on a day specified, engage in and with an unlawful, tumultuous, and riotous gathering, he advising and encouraging thereto, take from the jail of Hillsborough County, and hang by the neck until he was dead, one John, otherwise unknown, thereby showing such an utter disregard and contempt for the law which, as a sworn attorney, he was bound to support, as shows him to be totally unfitted to occupy such position; thereupon cited him to appear at a certain time and show cause why his name should not be stricken from the roll. The attorney appeared and answered, denying the charge in mass, and excepting to the j...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Warren v. King - 108 U.S. 389 (1883) U.S. Supreme Court Warren v. King, 108 U.S. 389 (1883) Warren v. King Decided May 7, 1883 108 U.S. 389 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF INDIANA Syllabus Certificates of preferred stock of the Ohio and Mississippi Railway Company were issued, containing the following language: "The preferred stock is to be and remain a first claim upon the property of the company after its indebtedness, and the holder thereof shall be entitled to receive from the net earnings of the company seven percent per annum, payable semiannually, and to have such interest paid in full, for each and every year, before any payment of dividend upon the common stock, and whenever the net earnings of the corporation which shall be applied in payment of interest on the preferred stock and of dividends on the common stock shall be more than sufficient to pay both said interest of seven percent on the preferred stock in full, and seven ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Dubuque & S.C. R. Co. v. Des Moines Valley R. Co. - 109 U.S. 329 (1883) U.S. Supreme Court Dubuque & S.C. R. Co. v. Des Moines Valley R. Co., 109 U.S. 329 (1883) Dubuque & Sioux City Railroad Company v. Des Moines Valley Railroad Company Argued October 29, 1883 Decided November 19, 1883 109 U.S. 329 I N ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IOWA Syllabus Previous decisions of this Court have settled: 1. That the grant of lands in 1846 to Iowa Territory for the improvement of the Des Moines River did not extend above the Raccoon Fork. 2. That the odd numbered sections within five miles of the river above Raccoon Fork and below the east branch, to which Indian title had been extinguished, did not pass under the act of 1856, granting lands to Iowa to aid in the construction of railroads. 3. That the act of 1862 transferred the title from the United States and vested it in Iowa for the use of its grantees under the river grant. The Court now decides: 4. That when the act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Walsh v. Preston - 109 U.S. 297 (1883) U.S. Supreme Court Walsh v. Preston, 109 U.S. 297 (1883) Walsh v. Preston Argued March 13-14, 1883 Decided November 19, 1883 109 U.S. 297 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Syllabus Prior to 1844, the Congress of Texas authorized contracts to be made for settling emigrant families on vacant lands to be designated in the contracts. Subsequently that Congress passed an act to repeal this law, and presented it to the President of Texas for his signature. He vetoed the repealing act. Congress then passed it over the veto. While the repealing act was thus suspended, the president contracted with one Mercer and associates to settle families on a designated tract, capable of identification. Preston, the appellant in one suit and appellee in the other, was assignee under Mercer. In February, 1845, the Congress of Texas enacted that on failure of the associates to have the tract surveyed and mar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Hurtado v. California - 110 U.S. 516 (1884) U.S. Supreme Court Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884) Hurtado v. California Argued January 22d, 23d 1884. Decided March 3d, 1884 110 U.S. 516 I N ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus 1. The words "due process of law" in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States do not necessarily require an indictment by a grand jury in a prosecution by a State for murder. 2. The Constitution of California authorizes prosecutions for felonies by information, after examination and commitment by a magistrate, without indictment by a grand jury, in the discretion of the legislature. The Penal Code of the State makes provision for an examination by a magistrate, in the presence of the accused, who is entitled to the aid of counsel Page 110 U. S. 517 and the right of cross-examination of witnesses, whose testimony is to to reduced to writing and upon a certificate thereon by the magistrate that a described...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Legal Tender Cases - 110 U.S. 421 (1884) U.S. Supreme Court Legal Tender Cases, 110 U.S. 421 (1884) Legal Tender Cases Submitted January 22, 1884 Decided March 3, 1884 110 U.S. 421 I N ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus Congress has the constitutional power to make the Treasury notes of the United States a legal tender in payment of private debts, in time of peace as well as in time of war. Under the Act of May 31, 1878, c. 146, which enacts that when any United States legal tender notes may be redeemed or received into the Treasury, and shall belong to the United States, they shall be reissued and paid out again, and kept in circulation, notes so reissued are a legal tender. Juilliard, a citizen of New York, brought an action against Greenman, a citizen of Connecticut, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the plaintiff sold and delivered to the defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Ex parte Yarbrough - 110 U.S. 651 (1884) U.S. Supreme Court Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884) Ex parte Yarbrough Argued January 23, 24, 1884 Decided March 3, 1884 110 U.S. 651 Syllabus This Court has no general authority to review on error or appeal the judgments of Circuit Courts in cases within their criminal jurisdiction. When a prisoner is held under sentence of a court of the United States in a matter wholly beyond the jurisdiction of that court, it is within the authority of the Supreme Court, when the matter is properly brought to its attention, to inquire into it, and to discharge the prisoner if it be found that the matter was not within the jurisdiction of the court below. Errors of law committed by a Circuit Court which passed sentence upon a prisoner cannot be inquired into in a proceeding on an application for habeas corps to test the jurisdiction of the court which passed sentence. An indictment which charges in the first count that the defendants conspi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Hagar v. Reclamation District - 111 U.S. 701 (1884) U.S. Supreme Court Hagar v. Reclamation District, 111 U.S. 701 (1884) Hagar v. Reclamation District Argued March 21, 1884 Decided May 5, 1884 111 U.S. 701 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus It is within the discretion of the Legislature of California to prescribe a system for reclaiming swamp lands, when essential to the health and prosperity of the community, and to lay the burden of doing it upon the districts and persons benefited. Lands in California derived by grant from the Mexican government are subject to state legislation respecting swamp and overflowed lands. The acts of Congress making the notes of the United States a legal tender do not apply to involuntary contributions in the nature of taxes or assessments exacted under state laws, but only to debts in the strict sense of the term; that is, to obligations founded on contracts, express or implied, for t...
Tag this Judgment!