Court : US Supreme Court
Smith v. McIver - 22 U.S. 532 (1822) U.S. Supreme Court Smith v. McIver, 22 U.S. 532 (1822) Smith v. McIver 22 U.S. 532 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WEST TENNESSEE Syllabus In all cases of concurrent jurisdiction, the court which first has possession of the subject must determine it conclusively. Although courts of equity have concurrent jurisdiction with courts of law in all matters of fraud, yet where the cause has already been tried and determined by a court of law, a court of equity cannot take cognizance of it unless there be the addition of some equitable circumstance to give jurisdiction. In such a case, some defect of testimony or other disability which a court of law cannot remove must be shown as a ground for resorting to a court of equity. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL, delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of West Tennessee dismissing the plaintiff's bill. The bill states...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Green v. Biddle - 21 U.S. 1 (1823) U.S. Supreme Court Green v. Biddle, 21 U.S. 8 Wheat. 1 1 (1823) Green v. Biddle 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 1 ON DIVISION OF OPINION AMONG THE JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF KENTUCKY Syllabus The Act of the State of Kentucky of 27 February, 1797, concerning occupying claimants of land, whilst it was in force, was repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, but it was repealed by a subsequent Act of 31 January, 1812, to amend the said act, and the last mentioned act is also repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, as being in violation of the compact between the States of Virginia and Kentucky contained in the Act of the Legislature of Virginia of 18 December, 1789, and incorporated into the Constitution of Kentucky. By the common law, the statute law of Virginia, the principles of equity, and the civil law, the claimant of lands who succeeds in his suit is entitled to an account of mesne profits, received by the occupant from some ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Kirk v. Smith ex dem. Penn - 22 U.S. 241 (1823) U.S. Supreme Court Kirk v. Smith ex dem. Penn, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 241 241 (1823) Kirk v. Smith ex dem. Penn 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 241 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus The act of Pennsylvania of 1779 "for vesting the estates of the late proprietaries of Pennsylvania in this commonwealth" did not confiscate lands of the proprietaries which were within the lines of manors, nor were the same confiscated by the act of 1751 for establishing a land office. The statute of limitations of Pennsylvania of 1705 is inapplicable to an action of ejectment brought to enforce the unpaid purchase money for lands of the proprietaries within the manors for which warrants had issued. Nor is the statute of limitations of 1785 a bar to such an action. This was an ejectment brought by the defendant in error in the court below to recover the possession of certain lands in York County in the State of Pennsylvania. On 4 March, 1681, Charle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Gibbons v. Ogden - 22 U.S. 1 (1824) U.S. Supreme Court Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 1 1 (1824) Gibbons v. Ogden 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 APPEAL FROM THE COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF IMPEACHMENTS AND CORRECTION OF ERRORS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Syllabus The laws of New York granting to Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton the exclusive right of navigating the waters of that State with steamboats are in collision with the acts of Congress regulating the coasting trade, which, being made in pursuance of the Constitution, are supreme, and the State laws must yield to that supremacy, even though enacted in pursuance of powers acknowledged to remain in the States. The power of regulating commerce extends to the regulation of navigation. The power to regulate commerce extends to every species of commercial intercourse between the United States and foreign nations, and among the several States. It does not stop at the external boundary of a State. But it does not extend to a commerc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Love v. Simm's Lessee - 22 U.S. 515 (1824) U.S. Supreme Court Love v. Simm's Lessee, 22 U.S. 515 (1824) Love v. Simm's Lessee 22 U.S. 515 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TENNESSEE Syllabus A question under the registry acts of Tennessee whether a junior conveyance registered should take precedence of a prior unregistered deed. Held that the registry did not, under the circumstances, vest the title against the elder deed. Page 22 U. S. 516 MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court. This cause comes up from the Circuit Court for the District of West Tennessee. The judgment in that court is in favor of the plaintiff in ejectment, and error is brought to reverse that judgment on the ground that the court below instructed the jury that the plaintiff there had the better title, and ought to recover. The facts of the cause are exhibited in a bill of exceptions, and, so far as are necessary to illustrate this opinion, may be stated thus: One Stockly Donaldson obtained...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Ex Parte Wood and Brundage - 22 U.S. 603 (1824) U.S. Supreme Court Ex Parte Wood and Brundage, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 603 603 (1824) Ex Parte Wood and Brundage 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 603 Syllabus Under the tenth section of the Patent Act of 21 February 1793, ch. 11, upon granting a rule by the judge of the district court upon the patentee, to show cause why process should not issue to repeal the patent, the patent is not repealed de facto by making the rule absolute, but the process to be awarded is in the nature of a scire facias at common law to the patentee to show cause why the patent should not repealed, with costs of suit, and upon the return of such process, duly served, the judge is to proceed to stay the cause upon the pleadings filed by the parties and the issue joined thereon. If the issue be an issue of fact, the trial thereof is to be by a jury; if an issue of law, by the court, as in other cases. In such a case, a record is to be made of the proceedings antecedent to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Governeur's Heirs v. Robertson - 24 U.S. 332 (1826) U.S. Supreme Court Governeur's Heirs v. Robertson, 24 U.S. 11 Wheat. 332 332 (1826) Governeur's Heirs v. Robertson 24 U.S. (11 Wheat.) 332 CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF KENTUCKY Syllabus An alien may take real property by grant, whether from the state or a private citizen, and may hold the same until his title is devested by an inquest of office or some equivalent proceeding. The Act of Assembly of Virginia of 1779, c. 13, s. 3, secured from escheat all the interest acquired by aliens in real property previous to the issuing of the patent, and left the rights acquired by them under the patent to be determined by the general principles of the common law. The title of an alien thus acquired by patent in 1784 under the laws of Virginia and subsequently confirmed to him by a legislative act of Kentucky in 1796, and to his heirs and their grantees by an act of the same state in 1799 will overreach a grant mad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Jackson v. Clark - 26 U.S. 628 (1828) U.S. Supreme Court Jackson v. Clark, 26 U.S. 1 Pet. 628 628 (1828) Jackson v. Clark 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 628 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF OHIO Syllabus Construction of the Act of Congress passed March 2, 1807, entitled "An act to extend the time for locating Virginia military warrants, for returning surveys thereon to the office of the Secretary of the Department of War, and appropriating lands for the use of schools in the Virginia military reservation in lieu of those heretofore appropriated." The reservation made by the law of Virginia of 1783, ceding to Congress the territory northwest of the River Ohio, is not a reservation of the whole tract of country between the Rivers Scioto and Little Miami. It is a reservation of only so much of it as may be necessary to make up the deficiency of good lands in the country set apart for the officers and soldiers of the Virginia Line on the continental establis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Hunt v. Wickliffe - 27 U.S. 201 (1829) U.S. Supreme Court Hunt v. Wickliffe, 27 U.S. 2 Pet. 201 201 (1829) Hunt v. Wickliffe 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 201 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF KENTUCKY Syllabus An entry was made in the land office of Kentucky of one thousand acres, in the name of "John Floyd's heirs," without naming the persons who were the heirs. Upon an objection to the validity of the entry, the court said that substituting a legal description which cannot be misunderstood for the more definite description by the proper names of the persons who are the heirs, was not of such substantial importance as to vitiate the transaction. An entry was made "so as to join the settlements on the north east and south sides thereof, so as not to run into the old military surveys which are legal. " The old military surveys formed together a parallelogram, and adjoined the lands intended to be described by the entry. It was objected that the limitation on the entry "so as not to run-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Reynolds v. McArthur - 27 U.S. 417 (1829) U.S. Supreme Court Reynolds v. McArthur, 27 U.S. 2 Pet. 417 417 (1829) Reynolds v. McArthur 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 417 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Syllabus The lands northwest of the River Ohio, between the Rivers Scioto and Little Miami, lying west of Ludlow's Line, east of Roberts' Line, and south of the Indian boundary, reserved by Virginia in her deed of cession to the United States of March, 1784, for the satisfaction of the military bounties Virginia had promised, were not, prior to 1810, by any legislative acts of the government of the United States withdrawn from appropriation under and by virtue of Virginia military land warrants. A patent issued on 12 October, 1812, founded upon a military land warrant for land within the reserved lands is valid against a claimant of the same land holding under a sale made by the United States. This was an action of ejectment brought originally in the Court of Common Pleas for Champaign Cou...
Tag this Judgment!