Court : US Supreme Court
Brown v. United States - 12 U.S. 110 (1814) U.S. Supreme Court Brown v. United States, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 110 110 (1814) Brown v. United States 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 110 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus British property found in the United States on land at the commencement of hostilities with Great Britain cannot be condemned as enemy's property without a legislative act authorizing its confiscation. The act of the legislature declaring war is not such an act. Timber, floated into a salt water creek, where the tide ebbs and flows, leaving the ends of the timber resting on the mud at low water and prevented from floating away at high water by booms, is to be considered as landed. In this country, from the structure of our government, proceedings to condemn the property of an enemy found within our territory at the declaration of war can be sustained only upon the principle that they are commenced in execution of some existing law. In Englan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Gelston v. Hoyt - 16 U.S. 246 (1818) U.S. Supreme Court Gelston v. Hoyt, 16 U.S. 3 Wheat. 246 246 (1818) Gelston v. Hoyt 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 246 ERROR TO THE COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF IMPEACHMENTS AND CORRECTION OF ERRORS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Syllabus Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, s. 25, giving appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of the United States from the final judgment or decree of the highest court of law or equity of a state in certain cases, the writ of error may be directed to any court in which the record and judgment on which it is to act may be found, and if the record has been remitted by the highest court, &c.;, to another court of the state, it may be brought by the writ of error from that court. The courts of the United States have an exclusive cognizance of the questions of forfeiture upon all seizures made under the laws of the United States, and it is not competent for a state court to entertain or decide such question of forfeiture. If a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Wilkes v. Dinsman - 48 U.S. 89 (1849) U.S. Supreme Court Wilkes v. Dinsman, 48 U.S. 7 How. 89 89 (1849) Wilkes v. Dinsman 48 U.S. (7 How.) 89 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus In a suit brought by a marine against the commanding officer of a squadron, in which the marine alleged that he was illegally detained on board after the expiration of his term of enlistment, it was competent for the defendant to give in evidence a letter which he had written to the Secretary of the Navy, relating to the circumstances of the enlistment. An acquittal of the commanding officer by a court-martial, when tried for the same acts by order of the government, is not admissible evidence in a suit by an individual. The act of Congress passed on 2 March, 1837, 5 Stat. 153, authorized a reenlistment of marines to serve during the cruise then about to take place, they being included in the denomination of "persons enlisted for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Dynes v. Hoover - 61 U.S. 65 (1857) U.S. Supreme Court Dynes v. Hoover, 61 U.S. 20 How. 65 65 (1857) Dynes v. Hoover 61 U.S. (20 How.) 65 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus The Constitution of the United States gives to Congress the power to provide and maintain a navy, and to make rules for its government. In the exercise of this power, Congress provided for the punishment of desertion and of other crimes not specified in the articles, which should be punished according to the laws and customs in such cases at sea. Where a seaman was charged with deserting, and the court martial found him guilty of attempting to desert, the Court had jurisdiction over the subject matter, and an action of trespass for false imprisonment will not lie against the ministerial officer who executes the sentence for attempting to desert. It is only where a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, or, having such jurisdiction, is bound t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
The Circassian - 69 U.S. 135 (1864) U.S. Supreme Court The Circassian, 69 U.S. 2 Wall. 135 135 (1864) The Circassian 69 U.S. (2 Wall.) 135 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Syllabus 1. A blockade may be made effectual by batteries on shore as well as by ships afloat, and, in case of an inland port, may be maintained by batteries commanding the river or inlet by which it may be approached, supported by a naval force sufficient to warn off innocent and capture offending vessels attempting to enter. 2. The occupation of a city by a blockading belligerent does not terminate a public blockade of it previously existing, the city itself being hostile, the opposing enemy in the neighborhood, and the occupation limited, recent, and subject to the vicissitudes of war. Still less does it terminate a blockade proclaimed and maintained not only against that city, but against the port and district commercially dependent upon it and blockaded by its blockad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
The Peterhoff - 72 U.S. 28 (1866) U.S. Supreme Court The Peterhoff, 72 U.S. 5 Wall. 28 28 (1866) The Peterhoff 72 U.S. (5 Wall.) 28 APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus 1. A blockade is not to be extended by construction. 2. The mouth of the Rio Grande was not included in the blockade of the ports of the rebel states, set on foot by the national government during the late rebellion, and neutral commerce with Matamoras, a neutral town on the Mexican side of the river, except in contraband destined to the enemy, was entirely free. 3. Semble that a belligerent cannot blockade the mouth of a river, occupied on one bank by neutrals with complete rights of navigation. 4. A vessel destined for a neutral port with no ulterior destination for the ship, or none by sea for the cargo to any blockaded place, violates no blockade. Hence trade, during our late rebellion, between London and Matamoras, two neutral places, the last an i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Hailes v. Van Wormer - 87 U.S. 353 (1873) U.S. Supreme Court Hailes v. Van Wormer, 87 U.S. 20 Wall. 353 353 (1873) Hailes v. Van Wormer 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 353 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus 1. A new combination, if it produces new and useful results, is patentable though all the constituents of the combination were well known and in common use before the combination was made. But the results must be a product of the combination, and not a mere aggregate of several results, each the complete product of one of the combined elements. Page 87 U. S. 354 2. Merely bringing old devices into juxtaposition and there allowing each to work out its own effect without the production of something novel is not invention. 3. No one, by bringing together several old devices without producing a new and useful result, the joint product of the elements of the combination and something more than an aggregate of old results, can acquire a right t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Donovan v. United States - 90 U.S. 383 (1874) U.S. Supreme Court Donovan v. United States, 90 U.S. 23 Wall. 383 383 (1874) Donovan v. United States 90 U.S. (23 Wall.) 383 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI Syllabus Surveyors of ports performing the duties of collectors of the customs in ports other than those ports enumerated in the fifth section of the Act of May 7, 1822, 3 Stat. at Large 693, that is to say of ports other than Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Charleston, Savannah, and New Orleans, are entitled to a salary of but $5,000 a year, even though the ports in which such surveyors may be performing the duties of collectors had no existence on May 7th, 1822, and, like the port of St. Louis, were not created till 1831. The system of classes, established for salary purposes by the above-mentioned act of 1822, extends to surveyors doing collectors' duty in ports subsequently created. Donovan was surveyor of the port of St. Louis, "...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Moran v. Prather - 90 U.S. 492 (1874) U.S. Supreme Court Moran v. Prather, 90 U.S. 23 Wall. 492 492 (1874) Moran v. Prather 90 U.S. (23 Wall.) 492 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Syllabus 1. Where a firm with several persons styling themselves, as a firm in this case did, "creditors of the steamboat B.," agreed to release P. (owner of 17/22 parts of the boat, the rest being owned by two other persons) "from all indebtedness due us by the said steamboat so far as the said P. is concerned, " and where, on P.'s being about to sell to C. for a price greatly below its value had it been clear of debts, his interest in the steamer on condition that C. would assume and pay all debts, the firm executed an agreement by which they bound themselves to defend and save the said P. free and harmless of any and all claims and demands that may arise or be brought against said steamboat excepting those above signed, Held: (a) That it was not allowable to show by o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Steele v. United States - 113 U.S. 128 (1885) U.S. Supreme Court Steele v. United States, 113 U.S. 128 (1885) Steele v. United States Submitted December 22, 1884 Decided January 19, 1885 113 U.S. 128 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus A private sale of old material arising from the breaking up of a vessel of war, made by an officer of the Navy Department to a contractor for repairs of a war vessel and machinery, is a violation of the provisions of 1541 Rev.Stat. The allowance of the estimated value of such material in the settlement of Page 113 U. S. 129 such contractor's accounts is a violation of the provisions of 3618 Rev.Stat. A settlement of such accounts at the Navy Department and at the Treasury, in which the contractor was debited with the material at the estimated value, does not preclude the United States from showing that the estimates were far below the real value, and from recovering the difference between the amount allowed and the real value. Delay...
Tag this Judgment!