Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1870
Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts - 77 U.S. 566 (1870) U.S. Supreme Court Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 77 U.S. 10 Wall. 566 566 (1870) Liverpool Insurance Company v. Massachusetts 77 U.S. (10 Wall.) 566 ERROR TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus 1. A corporation created by one state can only exercise its corporate franchises in another state by the comity of the latter. 2. A joint stock association, which by its deed of settlement in England and certain acts of Parliament is endowed with the faculties and powers mentioned below is a corporation, and will be so held in this country, notwithstanding the acts of Parliament, in accordance with a local policy, declare that it shall not be so held. These faculties and powers are: 1. A distinctive artificial name by which it can make contracts. 2. A statutory authority to sue and be sued in the name of its officers as representing the association. 3. A statutory recognition of the association as an en...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1870
Insurance Company v. Dunham - 78 U.S. 1 (1870) U.S. Supreme Court Insurance Company v. Dunham, 78 U.S. 11 Wall. 1 1 (1870) Insurance Company v. Dunham 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 1 ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION IN OPINION BETWEEN THE JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus 1. The admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States is not limited by the statutes or judicial prohibitions of England. First. The locus, or territory, of maritime jurisdiction where torts must be committed and where business must be transacted in order to be maritime in their character extends not only to the main sea, but to all the navigable waters of the United States or bordering on the same, whether land-locked or open, salt or fresh, tide or no tide. Secondly. As to contracts, the true criterion whether they are within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction is their nature and subject matter, as whether they are maritime contracts, having reference to maritime ser...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1870
Insurance Company v. The Treasurer - 78 U.S. 204 (1870) U.S. Supreme Court Insurance Company v. The Treasurer, 78 U.S. 11 Wall. 204 204 (1870) Insurance Company v. The Treasurer 78 U.S. 204 ON WRIT OF ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Syllabus 1. A state statute directed a county treasurer to give certificates of indebtedness to any bank in the county for the amount of tax paid on its investments in the public indebtedness of the United States, "which taxes have been judicially decided to have been illegally imposed and collected." To an alternative mandamus to compel the treasurer to give such certificates, he answered that it had not been judicially decided that the particular tax was illegal. A peremptory mandamus was refused by the state court. Held that although this Court had since decided the tax to be illegal, yet as it did not appear by the record that the state court passed on the legality or illegality of the tax, but might have decided the case ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1870
Insurance Company v. Francis - 78 U.S. 210 (1870) U.S. Supreme Court Insurance Company v. Francis, 78 U.S. 11 Wall. 210 210 (1870) Insurance Company v. Francis 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 210 WRIT OF ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI Syllabus An averment in a declaration that the defendant is a corporation created by an act of the Legislature of the State of New York, located in Aberdeen, Mississippi and doing business there under the laws of the state, is not an averment that the defendant is a citizen of Mississippi. One Francis had brought suit in the Circuit Court of Monroe County, Mississippi, November Term 1866, against "The Germania Fire Insurance Company of the City of New York" upon a policy of insurance. The company appeared to the suit and demurred to the declaration. The plaintiff, at August Term 1867, petitioned for the removal of the cause "to the Circuit Court of the United States, held in or at Oxford, in the Nort...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1870
St. Louis v. Ferry Company - 78 U.S. 423 (1870) U.S. Supreme Court St. Louis v. Ferry Company, 78 U.S. 11 Wall. 423 423 (1870) St. Louis v. Ferry Company 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 423 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MISSOURI Syllabus The ferry boats of a corporation incorporated in one state and carrying passengers, &c.;, forward and back across a river to a city situated in another state are not taxable under a law taxing boats "within the city" in a case where the relation of the boats to the city was simply that of contact, as one of the termini of their voyage, and the place where they were laid up when not in use, and where their pilots and engineers resided, and where the real estate of the corporation including a warehouse was situated, was on the opposite shore and in another state. This is not altered by the facts that the boats were enrolled in pursuance of our navigation acts at the city; that the ferry company had an office there; that its president, vice-p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1870
Junction Railroad Company v. Bank of Ashland - 79 U.S. 226 (1870) U.S. Supreme Court Junction Railroad Company v. Bank of Ashland, 79 U.S. 12 Wall. 226 226 (1870) Junction Railroad Company v. Bank of Ashland 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 226 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF INDIANA Syllabus 1. If a bond be not usurious by the law of the place where payable, a plea of usury cannot be sustained in an action thereon unless it alleges that the place of payment was inserted as a shift or device to evade the law of the place where the bond was made. 2. Where a plea is erroneously overruled on demurrer and issue is joined on another plea under which the same defense might be made, the judgment will not be disturbed after verdict. 3. A prohibition against lending money at a higher rate of interest than the law allows will not prevent the purchase of securities at any price which the parties may agree upon. 4. Whether a negotiation of securities is a purchase or a loan is ordinar...
Tag this Judgment!