Court : US Supreme Court
Van Brocklin v. Tennessee - 117 U.S. 151 (1886) U.S. Supreme Court Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U.S. 151 (1886) Van Brocklin v. Tennessee Submitted November 17, 1885 Decided March 1, 1886 117 U.S. 151 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE Syllabus Property of the United States is exempt by the Constitution of the United States from taxation under the authority of a state. Land in a state which, pursuant to acts of Congress for the laying and collecting of direct taxes, is sold, struck off and purchased by the United States for the amount of the tax thereon and is afterwards sold by the United States for a larger sum or redeemed by the former owner is exempt from taxation by the state, while so owned by the United States, and, for nonpayment of taxes assessed by the state during that time, cannot be sold afterwards. The amended bill in this case was filed in the Chancery Court of Shelby county, in the State of Tennessee, by the state and its proper officers...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Kagama - 118 U.S. 375 (1886) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886) United States v. Kagama Argued March 2, 1886 Decided May 10, 1886 118 U.S. 375 CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION IN OPINION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus The ninth section of the Indian Appropriation Act of March 3, 1885, 23 Stat. 385, is valid and constitutional in both its branches -- namely, that which gives jurisdiction to the courts of the Territories of the crimes named (murder, manslaughter, rape, assault with intent to kill, arson, burglary, and larceny), committed by Indians within the Territories, and that which gives jurisdiction in like cases to courts of the United States for the same crimes committed on an Indian reservation within a State of the Union. While the Government of the United States has recognized in the Indian tribes heretofore a state of semi-independence and pupilage, it has the right and autho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Choctaw Nation v. United States - 119 U.S. 1 (1886) U.S. Supreme Court Choctaw Nation v. United States, 119 U.S. 1 (1886) Choctaw Nation v. United States Argued October 19-21, 1886 Decided November 15, 1886 119 U.S. 1 APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus The relations between the United States and the Indian tribes being those of a superior toward an inferior who is under its care and control, its acts touching them and its promises to them, in the execution of its own policy and in the furtherance of its own interests, are to be interpreted as justice and reason demand in cases where power is exerted by the strong over those to whom they owe care and protection. United States v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 370 , cited and applied. The Act of March 3, 1831, 21 Stat. 504, authorizing the Court of Claims "To take jurisdiction of and try all questions of difference arising out of treaty Stipulations with the Choctaw Nation, and to render judgment thereon," and granting it power...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Maxwell Land Grant Case - 121 U.S. 325 (1887) U.S. Supreme Court Maxwell Land Grant Case, 121 U.S. 325 (1887) Maxwell Land Grant Case Argued March 8-11, 1881 Decided April 18, 1887 121 U.S. 325 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Syllabus It does not satisfactorily appear that the grant of Governor Armijo of 1841 to Beaubien and Miranda, since ascertained to amount to 1,414,164.94 acres, was of that character which, by the decree of the Mexican Congress of 1824, was limited to eleven square leagues of laud for each grantee. It does appear that, though the attention of Congress was turned to this question, it confirmed the grant in the Act of June 21, 1860, to the full extent of the boundaries as described in the petition of claimants. In such case, the courts have no jurisdiction to limit the grant, as the Constitution, by Article IV, 1, vests the control of the public lands in Congress. Tameling v. United States Freehold Co., ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
McGowan v. American Pressed Tan Bark Co. - 121 U.S. 575 (1887) U.S. Supreme Court McGowan v. American Pressed Tan Bark Co., 121 U.S. 575 (1887) McGowan v. American Pressed Tan Bark Company Argued March 25, 28, 1887 Decided May 2, 1887 121 U.S. 575 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Syllabus In this case, the question being whether a contract was made by the defendants as co-partners or for a corporation, it was held that the instructions to the jury on the subject were proper. Where, by a contract, the defendants were to erect machinery on a steamboat in 60 days from the date of the contract, and the plaintiff did not furnish the steamboat until after the expiration of the 6O days, and the defendants then went on to do the work, they were bound to do it in 60 days from the time the boat was finished. A supplemental contract between the parties construed as to its bearing on the original contract sued on. A counterclaim or rec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Parker & Whipple Company v. Yale Clock Co. - 123 U.S. 87 (1887) U.S. Supreme Court Parker & Whipple Company v. Yale Clock Co., 123 U.S. 87 (1887) Parker and Whipple Company v. Yale Clock Company Argued October 20, 1887 Decided October 31, 1887 123 U.S. 87 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Syllabus The first eight claims of reissued letters patent No. 10,O62, granted March 14, 1882, to Arthur E. Hotchkiss for improvements in clock movements on an application for a reissue filed July 19, 1881 (the original patent, No. 221,310, having been granted to Hotchkiss November 4, 1879, on an application filed July 29, 1879, and a prior reissue, No. 9656, having been granted April 12, 1881), are invalid because not for the same invention as that of the original patent. The statutes and the decisions of this Court on the question of the necessity that a reissued patent should be granted only for the same invention as the original patent r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Doolan v. Carr - 125 U.S. 618 (1887) U.S. Supreme Court Doolan v. Carr, 125 U.S. 618 (1887) Doolan v. Carr No. 34 Argued October 24-25, 1887 Decided November 21, 1887 125 U.S. 618 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus The proper Circuit Court of the United States has jurisdiction, irrespective of the citizenship of the parties, of an action in ejectment, in which the controversy turns upon the validity of a patent of land from the United States. Want of power in an officer of the Land Office to issue a land patent may be shown in an action at law by extrinsic evidence, although the patent may be issued with all the forms of law required for a patent of public land. Land within the limits of a valid Mexican grant (which grant was sub judice when the grant of public land in aid of the Pacific Railroads was made by the Act of July 1, 1862, as amended July 2, 1864, and March 3, 1865), if found after the location of the railr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
In re Ayres - 123 U.S. 443 (1887) U.S. Supreme Court In re Ayres, 123 U.S. 443 (1887) In re Ayres Argued November 14-15, 1887 Decided December 5, 1887 123 U.S. 443 ORIGINAL Syllabus It is well settled in this Court that while the exercise of the power of punishment for contempt of their orders by courts of general jurisdiction is not subject to review by writ of error, or by appeal, yet, when a court of the United States undertakes, by its process of contempt, to punish a man for refusing to comply with an order which that court had no authority to make, the original order being void for want of jurisdiction, the order punishing for contempt is equally void, and if the proceeding for contempt result in imprisonment, this Court will, by its writ of habeas corpus, discharge the prisoner. Whether a state is the actual party defendant in a suit within the meaning of the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is to be determined by a consideration of the natu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Mugler v. Kansas - 123 U.S. 623 (1887) U.S. Supreme Court Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887) Mugler v. Kansas Argued April 11, 1887 Decided December 5, 1887 123 U.S. 623 ON WRITS OF ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS Syllabus State legislation which prohibits the manufacture of spirituous, malt, vinous, fermented, or other intoxicating liquors within the limits of the State, to be there sold or bartered for general use as a beverage, does not necessarily infringe any right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States, or by the Amendments thereto. The prohibition by the State of Kansas, in its Constitution and laws, of the manufacture or sale within the limits of the State of intoxicating liquors for general use there as a beverage is fairly adapted to the end of protecting the community against the evils which result from excessive use of ardent spirits, and it is not subject to the objection that, under the guise of police regulations, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Bowman v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co. - 125 U.S. 465 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court Bowman v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co., 125 U.S. 465 (1888) Bowman v. Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company No. 798 Submitted January l0, 1887 Decided March 19, 1888 125 U.S. 465 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus The question whether, when Congress fails to provide a regulation by law as to any particular subject of commerce among the states, it is conclusive of its intention that that subject shall be free from positive regulation, or that, until Congress intervenes, it shall be left to be dealt with by the states, is one to be determined from the circumstances of each case as it arises. So far as the will of Congress respecting commerce among the states by means of railroads can be determined from its enactment of the provisions of law found in Rev.Stat. 5258, and Rev.Stat. c. 6, Title 4S, 4252-4289, they are indications of...
Tag this Judgment!