Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Parkhurst-Davis Mercantile Co. - 176 U.S. 317 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Parkhurst-Davis Mercantile Co., 176 U.S. 317 (1900) United States v. Parkhurst-Davis Mercantile Company No. 180 Submitted January 31, 1900 Decided February 26, 1900 176 U.S. 317 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Syllabus This case comes within the provision of Rev.Stat. 720 to the effect that no writ of injunction shall be granted by a court of the United States to stay proceedings in any court of a state except in matters of bankruptcy. On August 21, 1897, the United States filed their bill in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas seeking an injunction restraining defendants from enforcing in the courts of the State of Kansas certain claims against Eli G. Nadeau and John Nadeau, members of the Page 176 U. S. 318 Prairie Band of Pottawatomie Indians, and residing on a reserve within the limits o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Maxwell v. Dow - 176 U.S. 581 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581 (1900) Maxwell v. Dow Argued December 4, 1899 Decided February 26, 1900 176 U.S. 581 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH Syllabus The decision In Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516 , that the words "due process of law " in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States do not necessarily require an indictment by a grand jury in a prosecution by a State for murder, has been often affirmed, and is now reaffirmed and applied to this case. The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal Government. The trial of a person accused as a criminal by a jury of only eight persons instead of twelve, and his subsequent imprisonment after conviction, do not abridge his privileges and immunities under the Constitu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Adirondack Ry. Co. v. New York State - 176 U.S. 335 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court Adirondack Ry. Co. v. New York State, 176 U.S. 335 (1900) Adirondack Railway Company v. New York State No. 489 Argued January 15-16, 1900 Decided February 26, 1900 176 U.S. 335 ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Syllabus While the legislative power to amend or repeal a statute cannot be availed of to take away property already acquired or to deprive a corporation of fruits of contracts lawfully made already reduced to possession, the capacity to acquire land by condemnation for the construction of a railroad attends the franchise to be a railroad corporation, and, when unexecuted, cannot be held to be, in itself, a vested right surviving the existence of the franchise or an authorized circumscription of its scope. The highest court of the New York having held that there is no property in a naked railroad route in that state which the state is obliged to pay for when it needs t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas - 177 U.S. 28 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 177 U.S. 28 (1900) Waters-Pierce Oil Company v. Texas No. 97 Argued January 8-9, 1900 Decided March 19, 1900 177 U.S. 28 ERROR TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE THIRD SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS Syllabus It is well settled that a state has the power to impose such conditions as it pleases upon foreign corporations seeking to do business within it. The statute of Texas of March 30, 1890, prohibiting foreign corporations which violated the provisions of that act from doing any business within the state imposed conditions which it was within the power of the state to impose, and this statute was not repealed by the Act of April 30, 1895, c. 83. The Waters-Pierce Oil Company is a private corporation incorporated under the laws of Missouri, and its principal offices are situated in St. Louis. It was incorporated to deal in naval stores, and to deal in and compound...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Knowlton v. Moore - 178 U.S. 41 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41 (1900) Knowlton v. Moore{|178 U.S. 41fn1|1} No. 387 Argued December 6-7, 1899 Decided May 14, 1900 178 U.S. 41 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus The plaintiffs in error were the executors of the will of Edwin F. Knowlton, of Brooklyn, New York. The defendant in error was the United States Collector of Internal Revenue for the First Collection District for the New York. Mr. Knowlton died at Brooklyn in October, 1898, and his will was duly proved. Under the portion of the Act of Congress of June 13, 1898, which is printed at length in a note to the opinion of the Court in this case, the United States Collector of Internal Revenue demanded of the executors a return showing the amount of the personal estate of the deceased and the legatees and distributees thereof. This return the executors made under protest, asserting that the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Leovy v. United States - 177 U.S. 621 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court Leovy v. United States, 177 U.S. 621 (1900) Leovy v. United States No. 238 Argued April 12, 16, 1900 Decided May 14, 1900 177 U.S. 621 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Subject to the paramount jurisdiction of Congress over the navigable waters of the United States, the State of Louisiana had, under the Act of March 2, 1849, c. 87, and the other statutes referred to in the opinion of the Court, full power to authorize the construction and maintenance of levees, drains and other structures necessary and suitable to reclaim swamp and overflowed lands within its limits. The dam constructed by the plaintiff in error at Red Pass was constructed under the police power of the state, and within the terms and purpose of the grant by Congress. The decision of the jury, to whom it had been left to determine whether the plaintiff in error was guilty, that the pass was in fact navig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
McDonnell v. Jordan - 178 U.S. 229 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court McDonnell v. Jordan, 178 U.S. 229 (1900) McDonnell v. Jordan No. 253 Argued April 19-20, 1900 Decided May 21, 1900 178 U.S. 229 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA Syllabus The decision in Fisk v. Henarie, 142 U. S. 459 , that the words in the Act of March 3, 1887, 24 Stat. 552, with regard to the removal of causes from a state court (as corrected by the Act of August 13, 1888, c. 868) "at any time before the trial thereof," used in regard to removals "from prejudice or local influence," were used by Congress with reference to the construction put by this Court on similar language in the Act of March 3, 1875, c. 187, 18 Stat. 470, and are to receive the same construction, which required the petition to be filed before or at the term at which the cause could first be tried, and before the trial thereof. Mattie Lee Fennell, a citizen of the County of Madison, Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Corralitos Co. v. United States - 178 U.S. 280 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court Corralitos Co. v. United States, 178 U.S. 280 (1900) Corralitos Co. v. United States No. 287 Submitted April 21, 1900 Decided May 28, 1900 178 U.S. 280 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus The appellant herein filed its original petition in the Court of Claims against the United States and the Apache Indians on September 8, 1892. Subsequently and by leave of court an amended petition was filed March 2, 1894, from which it appears that the petitioner is a corporation chartered under the laws of the New York and doing business in the State of Chihuahua, County of Guleana, Republic of Mexico, and that property to the value of nearly seventy-five thousand dollars, belonging to the petitioner, and situated at the time in the Republic of Mexico, was taken therefrom in 1881 and 1882, and stolen and carried off by the Apache Indians, then in amity with the United States, and brought from the Republic of Mex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1901)ILR24Mad96
1. The plaintiffs are the holders of a mortgage for Rs. 10,000 executed on the 24th April 1889. Besides seeking to enforce the ordinary remedies of mortgagees against their mortgagors and against the property comprised in the mortgage, they claim on the principle of contribution to charge any balance which may still remain due to them against certain other property which, with the property comprised in their own mortgage, was included in a prior mortgage executed in favour of Rangayya Goundan, It will be convenient to deal first with this latter claim, as to which it is argued, firstly, that in point of law it cannot be maintained and, secondly, that it cannot properly be joined in a suit by the mortgagee on his own mortgage. The claim arises in this way--2. In execution of the decree on Rangayya Goundan's mortgage, some of the property which is included in the latter mortgage of the plaintiffs was sold and to that extent the plaintiffs' security has been diminished. It was not compete...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1900)10MLJ383
1. The plaintiffs are the holders of a mortgage for Rs. 10,000 executed on the 24.th April 1889.Besides seeking to enforce the ordinary remedies of mortgagees against their mortgagors and against the property comprised in the mortgage, they claim on the principle of contribution to charge any balance which may still remain due to them against certain other property which,. with the property comprised in their own mortgage, was included in a prior mortgage executed in favour of Rangayya Gounden. It will be convenient to deal first with this latter claim as to which it is argued firstly, that that point of law it cannot be maintained, and, secondly, that it cannot properly be joined in a Suit by the mortgagee on his own mortgage. The claim arises in this way:2. In execution of the decree on Rangia Gounden's mortgage some of the property which is included in the later mortgage of the plaintiffs was sold, and to that extent the plaintiffs' security has been diminished. It was not compelent...
Tag this Judgment!