Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-05-1926
Reported in : AIR1926Cal470
Walmsley, J.1. The petitioner gave evidence in a case tried by the Chief Presidency Magistrate. Part of his evidence was regarded as false and the learned Magistrate deemed it necessary to take proceedings under Section 476, Criminal P.C. He accordingly drew up a complaint. This complaint he preferred in his own Court and then he transferred it to Mr. Khan, Presidency Magistrate, for disposal. The latter issued process, held an enquiry and committed the petitioner for trial. Objection was taken at the trial that the commitment was illegal, but the presiding Judge, Mr. Justice B.B. Ghose, overruled the objection. The petitioner was then tried and convicted. The learned Advocate-General, under the provisions of Clause 26 of the Letters Patent, has granted a fiat certifying that in his judgment the questions whether under Section 476, Criminal P.C., the Chief Presidency Magistrate was competent to make a complaint to himself or take cognizance of the said case and transfer the same and wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-11-1926
Independent Wireless Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. - 269 U.S. 459 (1926) U.S. Supreme Court Independent Wireless Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp., 269 U.S. 459 (1926) Independent Wireless Telegraph Company v. Radio Corporation of America No. 87 Argued October 23, 1925 Decided January 11, 1926 269 U.S. 459 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. A suit by an exclusive licensee under a patent to protect his rights against infringement by a stranger, without joining the patent owner as plaintiff, does not arise under the patent laws (Rev.Stats. 4921), but is based merely on contract rights, and is not maintainable in the federal court in the absence of diversity of citizenship. P. 269 U. S. 466 . 2. An exclusive licensee may bring suit under Rev.Stats. 4921 by joining the patent owner as a co-plaintiff when the latter is out of the jurisdiction and declines to join and when such suit is Page 269 U. S. 460 necessary to protect the rights of the li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-04-1926
Reported in : (1926)28BOMLR1391
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a decree, dated March 14, 1922, of the High Court at Madras, which was made in its appellate civil jurisdiction and varied as decree, dated October 20, 1920, of a Judge of the same Court, which was made in the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court.2. The appeal arises in a suit which was instituted with the leave of the High Court on Februarys, 1919, in the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court by the plaintiffs, who live in the city of Madras, to obtain a decree against Les Tanneries Lyonnaises and their agent Monsieur J. Marret for money alleged to be due to the plaintiffs under a contract for the sale and delivery of goat skins under a contract of May 25, 1917, and under a contract of January 26, 1918, for the sale and delivery of sheep skins. There was another defendant to the suit named, C, Sowrimuthoerya Oodayar, against whom no relief was claimed. The suit was tried and the decree of the t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-01-1926
United States v. Minnesota - 270 U.S. 181 (1926) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Minnesota, 270 U.S. 181 (1926) United States v. Minnesota No. 17, Original Argued January 4, 5, 1926 Decided March 1, 1926 270 U.S. 181 Syllabus 1. A suit against a state brought by the United States as guardian of tribal Indians to recover the title, or money proceeds, of lands alleged to have been patented to the state by the United States in breach of its trust obligations to the Indians is not a suit in which the Indians are the real parties in interest, but one in which the United States is really and directly interested, and is within the original jurisdiction of this Court. P. 270 U. S. 193 . 2. The six-year limitation (Act of March 3, 1891) is inapplicable where the United States sues to annul patents issued in alleged violation of rights of its Indian wards and of its obligations to them. P. 270 U. S. 195 . 3. State statutes of limitations do not apply to such suits. Id. 4. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-01-1926
Sanchez v. Deering - 270 U.S. 227 (1926) U.S. Supreme Court Sanchez v. Deering, 270 U.S. 227 (1926) Sanchez v. Deering No. 134 Argued January 14, 1926 Decided March 1, 1926 270 U.S. 227 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. Confirmation by Congress of a Spanish grant in Florida (Acts of March 3, 1823, February 8, 1827) followed by survey, passed legal title. Wilson Cypress Co. v. Marcos, 236 U. S. 635 . P. 270 U. S. 229 . 2. Claimants of an undivided interest in such a grant, and their predecessors, by postponing for seventy years after survey the suit against those holding under the confirmation, were guilty of laches. Id. . 298 F. 286 affirmed. Page 270 U. S. 228 Appeal from a decree of the circuit court of appeals which affirmed a decree of the district court dismissing the bill in a suit to establish an interest in a tract of land MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court. By a bill filed April 7, 1920, a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-01-1926
First Moon v. White Tail and United States - 270 U.S. 243 (1926) U.S. Supreme Court First Moon v. White Tail and United States, 270 U.S. 243 (1926) First Moon v. White Tail and United States No.191 Argued January 29, 1926 Decided March 1, 1926 270 U.S. 243 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA Syllabus 1 A decision of the Secretary of the Interior determining who are the heirs of an Indian allottee who died intestate after receiving his trust patent under the General Allotment Act and before issuance of a fee simple patent, is made conclusive by the Act of June 10, 1910, and the district court is without jurisdiction to reexamine it for alleged error of law. So held in a suit against an adverse claimant and the United States. P. 270 U. S. 243 . 2. The Act of December 21, 1911, amending 24 of the Judicial Code and conferring on district courts jurisdiction of actions involving the right of persons of Indian blood or de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-22-1926
Smith v. McCullough - 270 U.S. 456 (1926) U.S. Supreme Court Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S. 456 (1926) Smith v. McCullough No. 22 Argued October 8, 1925 Decided March 22, 1926 270 U.S. 456 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. Whatever is essential to federal jurisdiction must be alleged in the complaint; otherwise the suit must be dismissed unless the defect in the complaint be cured by amendment. P. 270 U. S. 459 . 2. Where the jurisdiction depended on the existence of a dispute over the construction of federal statutes which was not properly shown in the bill, but which was the principal controversy in several trials in which jurisdiction was assumed to exist by the courts and both parties, and this appeared by the record, held that the defect was amendable, and would be treated as amended in this Court. P. 270 U. S. 459 . Page 270 U. S. 457 3. A judgment of the circuit court of appeal reversing the district court and remandi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-12-1926
Luckett v. Delpark, Inc. - 270 U.S. 496 (1926) U.S. Supreme Court Luckett v. Delpark, Inc., 270 U.S. 496 (1926) Luckett v. Delpark, Inc. No. 220 Argued March 16 1926 Decided April 12, 1926 270 U.S. 496 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Syllabus 1. A suit is within the jurisdiction of the district court, as arising under the patent laws, where the bill seeks an injunction against infringement, with profits and damages, even though it contain averments in denial of an anticipated defense of license or authority Page 270 U. S. 497 to use the patent. Hartell v. Tilghman, 99 U. S. 547 , qualified. P. 270 U. S. 510 . 2. But where the main purpose of the bill is to recover royalties under a license or assignment, or damages for breach of covenants, or for specific performance thereof, or to declare a forfeiture of licenses or obtain a reconveyance of an assigned patent for breach of conditions, additional averments of danger that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : May-06-1926
Reported in : AIR1926Mad986; (1926)51MLJ299
ORDER1. This is an application for the grant of leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against the decree of the High Court in C.M.A. Nos. 437 of 1923 and 15 of 1924. A preliminary objection is taken by Mr. Patanjali Sastri for the respondent that no appeal lies to the Privy Council against the decree of the High Court in testamentary matters and it is incompetent for the High Court to grant leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The argument of Mr. Patanjali Sastri is that under the Probate and Administration Act, Section 86, only one appeal is provided from an order of District Judge or District Delegate to the High Court and no further appeal is allowed by the Act, and that an appeal being a creature of statute there is no statute granting the right of appeal to the Privy Council in testamentary matters. Section 86 no doubt provides for an appeal to the High Court against an order made by a District Judge or a District Delegate. The question is, is the decree of the High Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : May-06-1926
Reported in : 97Ind.Cas.836
ORDER1. This is an application for the grant of leave to appeal to His Majesty in; Council against the decree of the High Court in C.M.A. Nos. 437 of 1923 and 15 of 1924. A preliminary objection is taken by Mr. Patanjali Sastri for the respondent that no appeal lies to the Privy Council against the decree of the High Court in testamentary matters and it 4S incompetent for the High Court to grant leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The argument of Mr. Patanjali Sastri is that under the Probate and Administration Act, Section 86, only one appeal is provided from an order of the District Judge or District Delegate to the High Court and no further appeal is allowed by the Act, and that an appeal being a creature of Statute there is no Statute granting the right of appeal to the Privy Council in testamentary matters. Section 86, no doubt, provides for an appeal to the High Court against an order made by a District Judge or a District Delegate. The question is, is the decree of the Hi...
Tag this Judgment!