Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-08-1917
Hill v. Reynolds - 242 U.S. 361 (1917) U.S. Supreme Court Hill v. Reynolds, 242 U.S. 361 (1917) Hill v. Reynolds No. 61 Argued November 2, 1916 Decided January 8, 1917 242 U.S. 361 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Syllabus A decision of the Secretary of the Interior adjudicating a contest over certain Choctaw and Chickasaw lands, and awarding a patent, under the agreement in the Act of June 28, 1898, c. 517, 30 Stat. 505, and the supplemental agreement in the Act of July 1, 1902, c. 1362, 32 Stat. 641, held free from misconstruction or misapplication of law. The provisions of 17 and 18 of the Act of June 28, 1898, supra, inhibiting enclosures and holdings of lands in excess of allottable quantities, were left in force as to the Choctaws and Chickasaws by the agreement in the 29th section which became effective through tribal ratification on August 24, 1898. Choctaw and Chickasaw lands held by a widow and her minor children in excess of allottable q...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-23-1917
Reported in : AIR1918Mad1145; (1917)33MLJ46
Wallis, C.J.1. The answer to the Full Bench reference being against him, Mr. Kuppusami Aiyar for the appellant has relied on another of the grounds taken here and in the lower Appellate Court, that time did not run between the 8th March, 1906 the date of the reference to arbitration and 31st October 1910, when it is alleged the arbitration proceedings came to an end by the death of the arbitrator. Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act provided that 'if any person who has made such a contract (to refer to arbitration) and has refused to perform it, sues in respect of any subject which he has contracted to refer, the existence of such a contract shall bar the suit.' As to this I agree with Richards, J., one of the referring Judges in Ram Kumar Singh v. Jagmohan Singh I.L.R. (1910) A. 315 that the institution of a suit after the contract to refer is sufficient refusal to perform such a contract to bar the suit under the section. The result of this provision when it was in force was, it se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-28-1917
Reported in : 41Ind.Cas.313
Teunon, J.1. These are six applications made to this Court under the provisions of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and of Section 195 (6) read with Section 195 (7) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. In each case the applicant was the defendant and the opposite party the plaintiff in a suit brought in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta. The suit having been dismissed, the defendants applied to the Trial Judge for sanction to prosecute the plaintiffs under Sections 209 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code. Sanction having been refused, in these applications, for the hearing of which I and Chaudhuri, J., have been constituted a Divisional Bench by his Lordship the Chief Justice, we are invited to revise and set aside the order of the Judge of the Court of Small Causes and to giant the sanction for which application was, and is, made.3. At the hearing Babu Manmatha Nath Mukerjee, a Vakil enrolled and ordinarily practising in this Court, was authorised by the plaintiffs-opposite ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-06-1917
Gannon v. Johnson - 243 U.S. 108 (1917) U.S. Supreme Court Gannon v. Johnson, 243 U.S. 108 (1917) Gannon v. Johnson No. 131 Argued December 2, 1916 Decided March 6, 1917 243 U.S. 108 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Syllabus Under the Choctaw-Chickasaw supplemental agreement of July 1, 1902, 11, 12, 15 and 16, 32 Stat. 641, surplus lands, selected by a member of the Chickasaw Tribe, become alienable only with the expiration of the respective periods after patent fixed in 16; these restrictions accompany the land when it passes to a tribal member by inheritance, and a conveyance by him while the periods are running is void. Mullen v. United States, 224 U. S. 48 , distinguished. The Act of April 26, 1906, 34 Stat. 137, in providing that conveyances of allotments made after selection should not be declared invalid solely because made prior to patent, was not intended to validate deeds made before removal of restrictions on alienation; on the contrary, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-09-1917
United States v. Waller - 243 U.S. 452 (1917) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Waller, 243 U.S. 452 (1917) United States v. Waller No. 697 Argued March 14, 15, 1917 Decided April 9, 1917 243 U.S. 452 CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus By force of the Clapp Amendment of 1906-1907, chaps. 3504, 2285, 34 Stat. 353, 1034, lands in the White Earth Reservation allotted and patented in trust to an adult mixed-blood Indian belong to him with all the rights and incidents of full ownership by persons of full capacity, including the right of alienation, and when he conveys them, the United States cannot maintain for his benefit a suit to annul the deed upon the ground that it was procured by fraud. The case is stated in the opinion. Page 243 U. S. 455 MR. JUSTICE DAY delivered the opinion of the court; This case is here upon a certificate from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, from which it Page 243 U. S. 456 appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-09-1917
United States v. Rowell - 243 U.S. 464 (1917) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Rowell, 243 U.S. 464 (1917) United States v. Rowell No. 63 Argued November 2, 3, 1916 Decided April 9, 1917 243 U.S. 464 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA Syllabus In the exercise of its guardian powers over tribal Indians through allotment of lands of their reservation and conversion of surplus lands into tribal funds, Congress is free to adjust its action to meet new and changing conditions so long as no fundamental right is violated. Having enrolled a white man as an adopted member of an Indian tribe, and authorized and directed the Secretary of the Interior to issue him a patent in fee for a designated tract of the tribal land as his allotment, to be in lieu of all claim on his part to allotment or to money settlement in lieu thereof, Congress had power to recall the direction before the fee had passed, upon finding that the tract design...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-09-1917
Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Co. - 243 U.S. 502 (1917) U.S. Supreme Court Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Co., 243 U.S. 502 (1917) Motion Picture Patents Company v. Universal Film Manufacturing Company No. 715 Argued January 12, 15, 1917 Decided April 9, 1917 243 U.S. 502 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Under the patent law, the grant by patent of the exclusive right to use, like the grant of the exclusive right to vend, is limited to the invention described in the claims of the patent, and that law does not empower the patent owner, by notices attached to the things patented, to extend the scope of the patent monopoly by restricting their use to materials necessary for their operation but forming no part of the patented invention, or to send such articles forth into the channels of trade subject to conditions as to use or royalty, to be imposed thereafter, in the vendor's discretion. The Button-Faste...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-30-1917
United States v. Morehead - 243 U.S. 607 (1917) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Morehead, 243 U.S. 607 (1917) United States v. Morehead No. 685 Argued March 14, 1917 Decided April 30, 1917 243 U.S. 607 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA Syllabus A charge of perjury may be based upon a valid regulation of the Land Department requiring an affidavit if the oath be taken "before a competent tribunal, officer or person." United States v. Smull, 236 U. S. 405 . The Land Department being expressly charged with the duty of enforcing the public land laws by appropriate regulations, its regulations in that regard, when duly promulgated, must be deemed valid if they are not unreasonable, inappropriate, or inconsistent with the acts of Congress. A regulation of the Land Department requiring applicants for soldiers' Page 243 U. S. 608 homesteads under Rev.Stats. 2304 et seq., to make oath in their declaratory statements that their ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-07-1917
Ewing v. Fowler Car Co. - 244 U.S. 1 (1917) U.S. Supreme Court Ewing v. Fowler Car Co., 244 U.S. 1 (1917) Ewing v. Fowler Car Company No. 721 Argued April 17, 1917 Decided May 7, 1917 244 U.S. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus When an applicant for a patent admits that the invention shown in his application was made at a date subsequent to the date upon which another application for the same invention was filed, and by amendment of his application adopts the prior applicant's claims, he thereby concedes the priority of the other's invention, its utility, and the sufficiency of the claims. In such a case, the Commissioner of Patents cannot be required by mandamus to declare an interference. Under Rev.Stats., 4904, the duty of the Commissioner to declare an interference arises only when, in the exercise of his judgment upon the facts presented, he is of opinion that a senior application will be interfered with by a junior one; the me...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-21-1917
United States v. Wildcat - 244 U.S. 111 (1917) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Wildcat, 244 U.S. 111 (1917) United States v. Wildcat No. 741 Argued April 11, 12, 13, 1917 Decided May 21, 1917 244 U.S. 111 ON CERTIFICATE FROM AND CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Acting under the enrollment provisions of the Curtis Act of June 28, 1898, and the Creek Agreement of March 1, 1901, the Dawes Commission was a quasi -judicial tribunal, and enrollments made by it and approved by the Secretary of the Interior are presumptively correct, and, unless impeached by very clear evidence of fraud, mistake, or arbitrary action, they are conclusive. Whether or not a person alleged to be a member of the Creek Nation was living on April 1, 1899, is one of the questions going to the right of such person or his heirs to have his name enrolled under 28 of Agreement of March 1, 1901, which the Dawes Commission was competent to decide; it is not a jur...
Tag this Judgment!