Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1883
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
Decided on : Jan-22-1883
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 : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-13-1883
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad316
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The petitioner complained to the Magistrate that, in consequence of her having widened a path by which her cattle were taken to pasture, K. Sankara Bhatta, I). M. Sankara Narayana Bhatta, Shambu alias Muttu Bhatta, and Sanku came to her verandah, inquired why she had widened the path, and abused her for it; that Sankara Bhatta pushed her on the neck, and, taking a switch of Maderi, struck her twice with it on the back; and that, fearing the other accused would also strike her, she entered the house. She added that the marks left by the blows were still visible.2. She was examined on her complaint; and it is recorded that she repeated her charge against Sankara Bhatta, that she admitted the other persons accused had not assaulted her, but explained that she included them in the complaint because they had stood by and abused her while Sankara was striking her.3. The Magistrate made a note that there were marks of blows on the complainant's back.4. It will b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-03-1883
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal92
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case certain immoveable property was sold by the Sheriff of Calcutta in execution of a decree of this Court for Rs. 5,000. It was sold subject to two mortgages, securing repayment with interest of Rs. 7,000 and Rs. 250 respectively.2. The Board of Revenue have referred to us the question whether the stamp on the sale certificate should be for Rs. 5,000, the purchase-money, or for Rs. 12,250, being the amount of the purchase-money plus the sum secured by the mortgages.3. The Collector and the Board of Revenue consider that the stamp should be for Rs. 12,250, and we are referred to two Full Bench authorities, one of the Bombay High Court Sha Nagindas Jeychand v. Halalkore Nathwa Gheesla I.L.R. 5 Bom. 470 and the other of the Madras High Court-Reference under Section 49 of the Stamp Act I.L.R. 5 Mad. 18, which appeared to be in conflict.4. The Bombay Court decided that where a certificate of sale expressly stated that the sale was made subject to the mortgage...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-13-1883
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal166
Richard Garth, C.J.1. Whatever doubts may have arisen upon the subject of this reference in consequence of recent legislation, it is at least satisfactory that we are all now agreed upon one very material point, namely, that at the time of the passing of the Indian Carriers Act in 1865, the English law relating to common carriers was in force in this country. My brother WILSON and myself, when we referred this case, had some doubt about that point, but, so far as I am concerned, I am glad to say that my doubts have been entirely removed.2. It is obvious that the Carriers Act itself assumes two things: first, that there were a class of persons here at that time, who were recognized as common carriers; and, secondly, that there was some special law, which regulated the duties and responsibilities of those persons. It is difficult to imagine what that law could have been, unless it were the English common law; and it seems only reasonable to suppose that, as common carriers were introduce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Nov-19-1883
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
Decided on : Nov-19-1883
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!