Court : US Supreme Court
Elk v. Wilkins - 112 U.S. 94 (1884) U.S. Supreme Court Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) Elk v. Wilkins Argued April 28, 1884 Decided November 3, 1884 112 U.S. 94 I N ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA Syllabus An Indian, born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, which still exists and is recognized as a tribe by the government of the United States, who has voluntarily separated himself from his tribe, and taken up his residence among the white citizens of a state, but who has not been naturalized, or taxed, or recognized as a citizen either by the United States or by the state, is not a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment of the Constitution. A petition alleging that the plaintiff is an Indian, and was born within the United States, and has severed his tribal relation to the Indian tribes, and fully and completely surrendered himself...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Dodge v. Woolsey - 59 U.S. 331 (1885) U.S. Supreme Court Dodge v. Woolsey, 59 U.S. 18 How. 331 331 (1885) Dodge v. Woolsey 59 U.S. (18 How.) 331 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF OHIO Syllabus A stockholder in a corporation has a remedy in chancery against the directors, to prevent them from doing acts which would amount to a violation of the charter or to prevent any misapplication of their capital or profits which might lessen the value of the shares, if the acts intended to be done amount to what is called in law a breach of trust or duty. So also a stockholder has a remedy against individuals, in whatever character they profess to act, if the subject of complaint is an imputed violation of a corporate franchise or the denial of a right growing out of it for which there is not an adequate remedy at law. Therefore where the directors of a bank refused to take the proper measures to resist the collection of a tax which they themselves be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Consolidated Safety Valve Co. v. Crosby Co. - 113 U.S. 157 (1885) U.S. Supreme Court Consolidated Safety Valve Co. v. Crosby Co., 113 U.S. 157 (1885) Consolidated Safety Valve Company v. Crosby Steam Gauge and Valve Company Argued December 10-11, 1884 Decided January 19, 1885 113 U.S. 157 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus Letters patent No. 58,294, granted to George W. Richardson September 25, 1866, for an improvement in steam safety valves, are valid. Under the claim of that patent namely, "A safety valve with the circular or annular flange or lip c c , constructed in the manner, or substantially in the manner, shown, so as to operate as and for the purpose herein described," the patentee is entitled to cover a valve in which are combined an initial area, an additional area, a huddling chamber beneath the additional area, and a strictured orifice leading from the huddling chamber to the open air, the orifice...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Hyatt v. Vincennes National Bank - 113 U.S. 408 (1885) U.S. Supreme Court Hyatt v. Vincennes National Bank, 113 U.S. 408 (1885) Hyatt v. Vincennes National Bank Submitted January 27, 1885 Decided March 2, 1885 113 U.S. 408 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF INDIANA Syllabus In 1874, B conveyed to H, for a term of 50 years, all the mineral coal upon and under a described tract of land, in Knox County, Indiana, with the exclusive right to enter on the land to dig for the coal, and remove it, and to occupy with constructions and buildings, as might be necessary and useful for the full development and enjoyment of the advantages of the coal, H to have the right to remove all buildings or fixtures placed on the land, when the agreement should expire, and to pay a fixed royalty for the coal mined. Under a judgment against H, the Sheriff of Knox County sold, on execution, to the judgment creditor at the courthouse door in that county, in the mann...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Kansas Pacific Ry. Co. v. Dunmeyer - 113 U.S. 629 (1885) U.S. Supreme Court Kansas Pacific Ry. Co. v. Dunmeyer, 113 U.S. 629 (1885) Kansas Pacific Railway Company v. Dunmeyer Argued November 8, 1884 Decided March 2, 1885 113 U.S. 629 I N ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS Syllabus The line of definite location of a railroad, which determines the rights of railroad companies to land under land grant acts of Congress, is definitely filed, within the meaning of those acts, by filing the map of its location with the Commissioner of the General Land Office at Washington. Under the acts granting lands to aid in the construction of a line of railroad from the Missouri River to the Pacific Ocean, the claim of a homestead or preemption entry made at any time before the filing of that map in the General Land Office had attached within the meaning of those statutes, and no land to which such right had attached came within the grant. The subsequent failure of the perso...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Poindexter v. Greenhow - 114 U.S. 270 (1885) U.S. Supreme Court Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270 (1885) Poindexter v. Greenhow Argued March 20, 23-25 Decided April 20, 1885 114 U.S. 270 I N ERROR TO THE HUSTINGS COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, STATE OF VIRGINIA Syllabus In an action of detinue for personal property distrained by the defendant for delinquent taxes in payment of which the plaintiff had duly tendered coupons cut from bonds issued by the State of Virginia under the Funding Act of March 30, 1871, Held: 1. That, by the terms of that act and the issue of bonds and coupons in virtue of the same, a contract was made between every coupon holder and the state that such coupons should "be receivable at and after maturity for all taxes, debts, dues, and demands due the state," the right of the coupon holder under which was to have his coupons received for taxes when offered, and that any act of the state which forbids the receipt of these coupons for taxes is a vio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Deffeback v. Hawke - 115 U.S. 392 (1885) U.S. Supreme Court Deffeback v. Hawke, 115 U.S. 392 (1885) Deffeback v. Hawke Submitted October 14, 1885 Decided November 16, 1885 115 U.S. 392 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF DAKOTA Syllabus No title from the United States to land known at the time of sale to be valuable for its minerals of gold, silver, cinnabar, or copper can be obtained under the preemption or homestead laws, or the townsite laws, or in any other way than as prescribed by the laws specially authorizing the sale of such lands, except in the States of Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri and Kansas. A certificate of purchase of mineral land, upon an entry of the same by a claimant at the local land office, if no adverse claim is filed with the register and receiver and the entry is not cancelled or disaffirmed by the officers of the Land Department at Washington, passes the right of the government to him, and as against the acquisition of titl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Coffey v. United States - 116 U.S. 427 (1886) U.S. Supreme Court Coffey v. United States, 116 U.S. 427 (1886) Coffey v. United States Argued December 16, 1885 Decided January 18, 1886 116 U.S. 427 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY Syllabus On a writ of error to review a judgment of forfeiture entered after a trial by a jury and a general verdict for the United States on an information in rem filed in a circuit court of the United States after a seizure of the res on land for a violation of the internal revenue laws, there was no bill of exceptions, and no exception to the overruling of a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto and of a motion to set aside the verdict and in arrest of judgment. Held that questions arising on demurrers to counts in the information and as to the jurisdiction of the circuit court could be reviewed. The Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the suit. A general verdict on several counts in such a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Walling v. Michigan - 116 U.S. 446 (1886) U.S. Supreme Court Walling v. Michigan, 116 U.S. 446 (1886) Walling v. Michigan Argued December 3, 1884 Decided January 18, 1886 116 U.S. 446 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Syllabus A tax imposed by a statute of a state upon an occupation, which necessarily discriminates against the introduction and sale of the products of another state or against the citizens of another state, is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States. The police power of a state to regulate the sale of intoxicating liquors and preserve the public health and morals does not warrant the enactment of laws infringing positive provisions of the Constitution of the United States. A state statute which imposes a tax upon persons who, not residing or having their principal place of business within the state, engage there in the business of selling or soliciting the sale of intoxicating liquors to be shipped into the state from places with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Barry v. Edmunds - 116 U.S. 550 (1886) U.S. Supreme Court Barry v. Edmunds, 116 U.S. 550 (1886) Barry v. Edmunds Argued January 7-8, 1886 Decided February 7, 1886 116 U.S. 550 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Syllabus A suit cannot properly be dismissed by a circuit court of the United States as not substantially involving a controversy within the jurisdiction of the court unless the facts, when made to appear on the record, create a legal certainty of that conclusion. Where exemplary damages beyond the sum necessary to give a circuit court of the United States jurisdiction are claimed in an action for a malicious trespass, the court should not dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction simply because the record shows that the actual injury caused to the plaintiff by the trespass was less than the jurisdictional amount. It is settled in this Court that in an action for a trespass accompanied with malice, the plaintiff may ...
Tag this Judgment!