Court : US Supreme Court
O'Neil v. Vermont - 144 U.S. 323 (1892) U.S. Supreme Court O'Neil v. Vermont, 144 U.S. 323 (1892) O'Neil v. Vermont No. 6 Argued January 20, 1892 Decided April 4, 1892 144 U.S. 323 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF VERMONT Syllabus A complaint, in Vermont, before a justice of the peace, for selling intoxicating liquor without authority, was in the form prescribed by the state statute, which also provided that, under such form of complaint, every distinct act of selling might be proved, and that the court should impose a fine for each offense. After a conviction and sentence before the justice of the peace, the defendant appealed to the County Court, where the case was tried before a jury. The defendant did not take the point, in either court, that there was any defect or want of fullness in the complaint. The jury found the defendant guilty of 307 offenses, as of a second conviction for a like offense. He was fined $6,140, being $20 for each offense, and the costs o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Logan v. United States - 144 U.S. 263 (1892) U.S. Supreme Court Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263 (1892) Logan v. United States No. 1235 Argued January 26, 27, 1892 Decided April 4, 1892 144 U.S. 263 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Syllabus A citizen of the United States, in the custody of a United States Marshall under a lawful commitment to answer for an offense against the United States, has the right to be protected by the United States against lawless violence; this right is a right secured to him by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and a conspiracy to injure or oppress him in its free exercise or enjoyment is punishable under section 5508 of the Revised Statutes. The consolidation, under section 1024 of the Revised Statutes, of several indictments against different persons for one conspiracy, if not excepted to at the time, cannot be objected to after verdict. An act of Congress requiring courts to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1893)ILR20Cal116
Ameer Ali, J.1. The question raised in this reference is of such vital importance to the Mahomedans of India and so materially affects their law and religion, the enjoyment of which has been guaranteed to them by the British Government, that I must state at some length the reasons that have compelled me to differ from my colleagues.2. The facts of the case are as follow:One Bikani Mia, a Mahomedan inhabitant of Dacca, shortly before his departure in 1874 on a pilgrimage to Mecca, executed a wakfnama in respect of a considerable portion of his property and registered the document in accordance with the law.The deed recites that the executant was in the full possession of his sense and power of understanding,' that he was not indebted to anybody, that the property to which it related was acquired by Bikani himself, and that he had an 'exclusive right, ownership and possession therein.3. The executant then goes on to say--I now think it advisable to lay down, according to our Mahomedan sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1893)ILR20Cal41
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Ghose, J. 1. This is an appeal against an order of remand passed by the Subordinate Judge of Dacca on the 19th June 1891. It appears that the plaint in this case was presented in the Court of First Instance on the 6th May 1890; but, it being found that it was insufficiently stamped, the following order was recorded: 'The plaint having been filed insufficiently stamped, ordered that the deficient Court-fee be paid within seven days.' Within the time appointed, the plaintiff paid the deficient Court-fee stamp, and the plaint was duly registered; but it so happened that during that time the period within which the plaintiff was bound to institute his suit under the law of limitation had expired, although, upon the date that the plaint was originally presented, it was within time.2. Objection having been raised by the defendant on the score of limitation, the Munsif held that the plaint should be regarded as having been filed not on the 6th May 1890, but on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Shoemaker v. United States - 147 U.S. 282 (1893) U.S. Supreme Court Shoemaker v. United States, 147 U.S. 282 (1893) Shoemaker v. United States No. 1197 Argued November 28-29, 1892 Decided January 1B, 1893 147 U.S. 282 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus Land taken in a city for public parks and squares by authority of law, is taken for a public use. The extent to which such property shall be taken for such use rests wholly in legislative discretion, subject only to the restraint that just compensation must be made. The proviso in the Maryland act of cession of the District of Columbia, that Page 147 U. S. 283 nothing therein contained should be "so construed to vest in the United States any right of property in the soil, as to affect the right of individuals therein, otherwise than the same shall or may be transferred by such individuals to the United States" has no reference to the power of eminent domain which belongs to the United States...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Baugh - 149 U.S. 368 (1893) U.S. Supreme Court Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Baugh, 149 U.S. 368 (1893) Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. Baugh No. 89 Argued December 9, 12, 1893 149 U.S. 368 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Syllabus Whether the engineer and fireman of a locomotive engine, running alone on a railroad and without any train attached are fellow servants of the company, so as to preclude the latter from recovering from the company for injuries caused by the negligence of the former is not a question of local law, to be settled by the decisions of the highest court of the state Page 149 U. S. 369 in which a cause of action arises, but is one of general law, to be determined by a reference to all the authorities, and a consideration of the principles underlying the relations of master and servant. Such engineer and such fireman, when engaged on such duty are, when so considered, fellow ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1893)ILR20Cal609
Pigot, J.1. These appeals are from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Gaya in each of two cases heard before him. Appeal 300 is brought in suit 88 of 1889, appeal 244 in suit 25 of 1889 in the Sub-Judge's Court.2. The suits are brought to enforce claims said to arise in virtue of a stipulation contained in a bharnanama or deed of usufructuary mortgage, dated the 10th Assin 1288 (29th September 1880), between Sir Jai Prakash Singh, K.C.S.I., then Raja of Deo, and his son, defendant No. 1, who is the present Raja, on the one part, and the plaintiff on the other. By that deed 83 mouzahs were given in bharna for nine years, up to Jeth 1296 (May 1889), to the plaintiff to secure the sum of Rs. 3,35,000, with interest at eight annas per centum per mensem.3. The mouzahs mortgaged, which are set out in the schedule to the deed, are described in the instrument as held in mokurrari and lease on annual uniform and varied rentals. The deed provides that the mortgagee shall remain ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Old Settlers - 148 U.S. 427 (1893) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Old Settlers, 148 U.S. 427 (1893) United States v. Old Settlers Nos. 1031, 1032 Argued December 13-14, 1892 Decided April 3, 1893 148 U.S. 427 APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus Finding of facts by the Court of Claims, in a suit which Congress has authorized it to take jurisdiction of in equity, may be reviewed by this court. Congress has not authorized the courts in this litigation to go behind the Treaty of August 6, 1846, 9 Stat. 871, with the Cherokee Nation. So far as there is a conflict between the treaties with the Cherokees and subsequent acts of Congress, the latter must prevail. The contention made by the Western Cherokees as to the ownership of land to the west of the Mississippi was put to rest by the treaty of 1846, and cannot now be revived. The rule that when a party, without force or intimidation and with a full knowledge of all the facts in the case, accepts on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
In re Tyler - 149 U.S. 164 (1893) U.S. Supreme Court In re Tyler, 149 U.S. 164 (1893) In re Tyler No. 17 Original Argued April 4, 1893 Decided April 24, 1893 149 U.S. 164 ORIGINAL Syllabus Property within a state which is in the possession of a receiver by virtue of his appointment as such by a circuit court of the United States is not subject to seizure and levy under process issuing from a court of the state to enforce the collection of a tax assessed upon its owner under the laws of the state. The exclusive remedy of the state tax collector in such case is in the circuit court which appointed the receiver, where the question of the validity of the tax may be heard and determined and where the priority of payment of such amount as may be found to be due which is granted by the laws of the state will be recognized and enforced. The writ of habeas corpus is not to be used to perform the office of a writ of error, or of an appeal. When no writ of error or appeal will lie, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Hill v. United States - 149 U.S. 593 (1893) U.S. Supreme Court Hill v. United States, 149 U.S. 593 (1893) Hill v. United States No. 108 Argued and submitted January 6, 1893 Decided May 10, 1893 149 U.S. 593 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Syllabus A claim by a person asserting title in land under tidewater, for damages for the use and occupation thereof by the United States for the erection and maintenance of a lighthouse, without his consent and without compensation to him, but not showing that the United States have acknowledged any right of property in him as against them, is a case sounding in tort of which the circuit court of the United States has no jurisdiction under the Act of March 3, 1887, c. 359. The case is stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court. This was a suit, brought November 1, 1888, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland under the Act of Mar...
Tag this Judgment!