Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian railway companies act 1895 Sorted by: old Page 14 of about 77,580 results (0.233 seconds)

indra Nath Banerjee Vs. Queen-empress on the Complaint of Matilal Mook ...

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1898)ILR25Cal425

..... of injury, danger or annoyance to the people in general, who dwell in the vicinity, is not therefore a 'public nuisance' within the meaning of section 268 of the indian penal code, or a 'nuisance' within the meaning of the second paragraph of section 133 of the criminal procedure code.7. in support of this branch of his argument, mr. ..... spot dedicated for the communal purpose of cremation use it for that purpose in a manner neither unusual nor calculated to aggravate the inconveniences necessarily incident to such an act as it is generally performed in this country, it must be admitted that he does what is perfectly lawful.' in fact the case cited does not go ..... mad. 464, 467, 468. the accused in that case had been, convicted under section 290 of the indian penal code for having cremated a corpse at a certain place, and the learned judges remarked that 'it is clear that the act of the accused falls under the limited class of cases sometime designated as nuisance 'legalised.' in other words .....

United States Vs. Union Pacific Railway Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

..... by a commission appointed under the treaty; that the union pacific railway company was the successor of the leavenworth company, and liable for the amount due the indians for the right of way; that the amount specified was appropriated and paid the delaware indians by the united states under the act of page 168 u. s. 511 july 13, 1892, as ..... of said petition, is the united states entitled to recover from the union pacific railway company, or the receivers thereof, the whole or any part of the sum of $10,715.75, heretofore paid by the united states to the delaware indians, pursuant to the act of congress of july 13, 1892, for improvements upon lands sold to the leavenworth ..... sureties, and was due from the railway company. to these counts, demurrers were sustained by the circuit court and judgment entered in favor of defendants. .....

Northern Pacific R. Co. Vs. Musser-sauntry Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

..... and conveyed them to the grantor of its co-defendant, the land, logging, and manufacturing company. on a readjustment page 168 u. s. 606 of the land grant, the railway company's title failed, and thereafter the grantee of the railway company purchased them pursuant to the act of march 3, 1887, c. 376, 24 stat. 556. on the other hand, ..... object of internal improvement, or for any other purpose whatsoever be, and the same are hereby, reserved to the united states from the operation of this act." and it was contended that an indian reservation was not excepted from the grant because the lands were not reserved to the united states. upon this, the court said (pp. 92 u ..... . . every tract set apart for special uses is reserved to the government to enable it to enforce them. there is no difference in this respect whether it be appropriated for indian or for other purposes." see also newhall v. sanger, 92 u. s. 761 , in which it was provided that the grant "shall not defeat or impair any preemption, .....

The Agent and Manager of the Madras Railway Company Vs. Govinda Rao

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1898)8MLJ85

..... the time contemplated so as to be available for the special market then existing at karamadai (wilson v. lancashire and yorkshire railway company, 30. l. j. c. p. 232 and illustration q to section 73 of the indian contract act, which illustration appears to be based on the english case). the plaintiff, however, did not allege or prove any such ..... to such conditions. (per hellish, l. j., in parker v. south-eastern railway company, at p. 421, l. r. 2 c. p.. he is therefore precluded from maintaining this suit, unless such a condition is void under section 72 of the indian railways act. the question then is whether the contract between the plaintiff and the defendants in so ..... . apart from any special contract, the responsibility of a railway company for the loss, destruction or deterioration of goods is declared by section 72 of the railways act (ix of 18.90) to be that of a bailee as defined in sections 151, 152 and 161 of the indian contract act, and the last section enacts that 'if, by the .....

Madras Railway Co. Vs. Govinda Rau

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1898)ILR21Mad172

..... him at the time contemplated so as to be available for the special market then existing at karamadai wilson v. lancashire and yorkshire railway company 30 l.j. c.p. 232 and illustration (q) to section 73 of the indian contract act, which illustration appears to be based on the english case)]. the plaintiff, however, did not allege or prove any such ' ..... special reason. apart from any special contract, the responsibility of a railway company for the loss, destruction or deterioration of goods is declared by section 72 of the railways act (ix of 1890) to be that of a bailee as defined in sections 151, 152 and 161 of the indian contract act, and the last section enacts that ' if, by the fault ..... . l.r. 2 c.p.d. 416. he is therefore precluded from maintaining this suit, unless such a condition is void under 72 of the indian railways act. the question then is whether the contract between the plaintiff and the defendants in so far as it purports to exonerate the latter from responsibility for delay .....

Thomas Vs. Gay

Court : US Supreme Court

..... arizona, 156 u. s. 347 , in which it was held that the property of railway companies traversing indian reservations are subject to taxation by the states and territories in which such reservations are located. but it is urged that the indians are directly and vitally interested in the property sought to be taxed, and that their rights ..... for judicial purposes." our attention is called to the following provision contained in the first section of the organic act: "nothing in this act shall be construed to impair any right now pertaining to any indians or indian tribe in said territory under the laws, agreements, and treaties of the united states, or to impair ..... clerk, and city assessor are a city board of equalization, but that, in the case of the unorganized districts and reservations, the board of county commissioners act as a board of equalization, etc. without undertaking to enumerate all the instances in which there is some difference of procedure in respect to property assessed within .....

Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Co. Vs. Haber

Court : US Supreme Court

..... 3. in support of the contention that national legislation leaves no room for state enactments relating to the bringing of diseased cattle into one state from another state, the railway company refers to the act of congress approved march 3, 1891, 26 stat. 1044, 1049, c. 544, appropriating $500,000 for carrying out the provisions of the ..... is not a quarantine law. it is not an inspection law. it says to all natural persons, and to all transportation companies:" "you shall not bring into the state any texas cattle or any mexican cattle or indian cattle between march first and december first in any year, no matter whether they are free from disease or not, no matter ..... and the missouri statute was held to be unconstitutional because it went beyond the necessities of the case, having been so drawn as to exclude all texas, mexican, or indian cattle from the state (except cattle to be transported across and out of the state), whether free from disease or not, or whether they would or would not do .....

Del Monte Mining Co. Vs. Last Chance Mining Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

..... . s. 274 , 101 u. s. 276 ; manuel v. wulff, 152 u. s. 505 , 152 u. s. 510 ; black v. elkhorn mining company, 163 u. s. 445 , 163 u. s. 449 . the act of 1866 was, however, as we have said, the first page 171 u. s. 63 general legislation in respect to the disposal of mines. the first section provided ..... has passed the public lands are within the jurisdiction of the land department, and, although equitable rights may be established, congress retains a certain measure of control. michigan land & lumber company v. rust, 168 u. s. 589 . the grant is, as is often said, in process of administration. passing to section 2320, beyond the recognition of the governing ..... such right in any of the adjudicated cases." fitzgerald v. clark, 17 mont. 100 -- a case now pending in this court on writ of error. tyler mining company v. last chance mining company, court of appeals, ninth circuit, decided by circuit judge mckenna, now a justice of this court, circuit judge gilbert, and district judge hawle, 54 f. 284. .....

Hopkins Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

..... s. 288 ; monongahela navigation co. v. united states, 148 u. s. 312 , 148 u. s. 329 -330; kentucky & indiana bridge company v. louisville &c.; railroad, 37 f. 567. to treat as condemned by the act all agreements under which, as a result, the cost of conducting an interstate commercial business may be increased would enlarge the application of the ..... have no part in or control over the disposition of the livestock sold by them to others, nor of livestock purchased by them as commission merchants acting for others. they allege that the stockyards company permits any person whatsoever to transact business at its yards page 171 u. s. 584 who will pay the established charges of that ..... aiken, 121 u. s. 444 ; st. louis v. western union telegraph company, 148 u. s. 92 . an agreement among the owners of such facilities to charge not less than a minimum rate for their use cannot be condemned as illegal under the act of congress. the fact that the above-cited cases relate to tangible property the use .....

Kally Dass Mookerjee Vs. the East Indian Railway Company

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1899)ILR26Cal465

..... are concerned. a railway company is not liable for the acts of even its own servants, if those acts are not done in the course and scope of the servants' duty--cobb v. great western railway co. (1894) l.r., app. cas. 419.64. c.a.v.maclean, c.j.,65. this is an appeal by the east indian railway company from a decision of ..... with their duty when they allowed gunpowder to be carried in a compartment where they allowed smoking54. section 47 of the indian railways act, 1890, empowers the company to make rules, and that power is given for the very purpose of meeting cases of this kind; but the defendants have not shown that they took ..... on their part that something dangerous was being carried.40. it was not possible for the company's servants to examine the luggage of every passenger. section 58 of the indian railways act, 1890, provides that every passenger shall, on request, deliver to the railway servants an account in writing containing such a description of the goods he is carrying as may .....