Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1873
Railroad Company v. Lockwood - 84 U.S. 357 (1873) U.S. Supreme Court Railroad Company v. Lockwood, 84 U.S. 17 Wall. 357 357 (1873) Railroad Company v. Lockwood 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 357 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus 1. A common carrier cannot lawfully stipulate for exemption from responsibility when such exemption is not just and reasonable in the eye of the law. 2. It is not just and reasonable in the eye of the law for a common carrier to stipulate for exemption from responsibility for the negligence of himself or his servants. 3. These rules apply both to common carriers of goods and common carriers of passengers, and with especial force to the latter. 4. They apply to the case of a drover traveling on a stock train to look after his cattle, and having a free pass for that purpose. Page 84 U. S. 358 5. Query: whether the same rules would apply to a strictly free passenger. 6. Held, arguendo, that a common carrier does not d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1873
Railroad Company v. Fort - 84 U.S. 553 (1873) U.S. Supreme Court Railroad Company v. Fort, 84 U.S. 17 Wall. 553 553 (1873) Railroad Company v. Fort 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 553 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA Syllabus F., a boy of tender years, had been engaged, by a company owning it, in a machine shop, as a workman or helper under the superintendence of C., and required to obey his orders. After being employed for a few months chiefly in receiving and putting away mouldings as they came from a moulding machine, the boy, by the order of C., ascended a ladder to a great height from the floor, among rapidly revolving and dangerous machinery, for the purpose of adjusting a belt by which a portion of the machinery was moved, and while engaged in the endeavor to execute the order had his arm torn from his body. The jury, by a special verdict, Page 84 U. S. 554 found that the order was not within the scope of the boy's duty and employment, but was within that of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1873
The Delaware Railroad Tax - 85 U.S. 206 (1873) U.S. Supreme Court The Delaware Railroad Tax, 85 U.S. 18 Wall. 206 206 (1873) The Delaware Railroad Tax 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 206 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE Syllabus 1. Although it has been repeatedly held by this Court that the legislature of a state may exempt particular parcels of property or the property of particular persons or corporations from taxation, either for a specified period or perpetually, or may limit the amount or rate of taxation to which such property shall be subjected, and that when such immunity is conferred or such limitation is prescribed by the charter of a corporation, it becomes a part of the contract, and is equally inviolate with its other stipulations, yet before any such exemption or limitation can be admitted, the intent of the legislature to confer the immunity or prescribe the limitation must be clear beyond a reasonable doubt. All public grants a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1873
Atkins v. Disintegrating Company - 85 U.S. 272 (1873) U.S. Supreme Court Atkins v. Disintegrating Company, 85 U.S. 18 Wall. 272 272 (1873) Atkins v. Disintegrating Company 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 272 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus 1. An entry on the record of an admiralty case that, on the return of a process of attachment, Mr. B. "appears for the respondent, and has a week to perfect an appearance and to answer" is an appearance, the entry being followed by the execution by the respondent or his agents of different bonds, reciting "that an appearance in the case had been entered." 2. A district court of the United States, when acting as a court of admiralty, can obtain jurisdiction to proceed in personam against an inhabitant of the United States not residing within the district (within which terms a corporation incorporated by a state not within the district is meant to be included), by attachment of the goods or property of such in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1873
North Missouri Railroad Company v. Maguire - 87 U.S. 46 (1873) U.S. Supreme Court North Missouri Railroad Company v. Maguire, 87 U.S. 20 Wall. 46 46 (1873) North Missouri Railroad Company v. Maguire 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 46 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI Syllabus 1. A contract by a state to give up its power to tax any property within it can be made only by words which show clearly and unequivocally an intention to make such a contract. 2. The act of the Legislature of Missouri of February 16, 1865, to provide for the completion of the North Missouri Railroad does not so show an intention of the state to give up its power to tax the property of the corporation owning that railroad. 3. The ordinance of the 8th of April, 1865, adopted by the people of Missouri, as part of the constitution of the state established on that day, was, as respected the North Missouri Railroad Company, a true exercise of the taxing power of the state, and not a mere change of the order of disbu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1873
Stockdale v. Insurance Companies - 87 U.S. 323 (1873) U.S. Supreme Court Stockdale v. Insurance Companies, 87 U.S. 20 Wall. 323 323 (1873) Stockdale v. Insurance Companies 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 323 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Syllabus 1. The cases of Barnes v. Railroad, 17 Wall. 294, and United States v. Railroad Company, 17 Wall. 322, considered and compared. 2. Held that whether the tax on dividends arising from the earnings of corporations for the year 1869 be viewed as a tax on the shareholder or on the corporation, it was intended to tax the earnings for that year by the section which limited the duration of the income tax. 3. Section seventeen of the Act of July 14, 1870, construing certain sections of the Internal Revenue Law of 1864 to extend the tax to the year 1870 is valid because it is not an attempt to exercise judicial power by construing a statute for the court, but is a mode of continuing or reviving a tax which might have been...
Tag this Judgment!