Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-22-1883
Albright v. Teas - 106 U.S. 613 (1883) U.S. Supreme Court Albright v. Teas, 106 U.S. 613 (1883) Albright v. Teas Decided January 22, 1883 106 U.S. 613 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Syllabus A suit, the parties thereto being citizens of the same state, was brought in a court thereof, for moneys alleged to be due to the complainant under a contract whereby certain letters patent granted to him were transferred to the defendant. Held that the suit, not involving the validity or the construction of the patents, is not one arising under a law of the United Staten, and cannot be removed to the Circuit Court. This was a suit in equity originally brought in the Court of Chancery of the State of New Jersey by Teas against Albright, Cahoone, and Tompkins. The bill alleged that Teas was the inventor and patentee of certain improvements in coach pads, harness saddles, and saddle trees covered by three certain letters patent issued to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Nov-19-1883
Walsh v. Preston - 109 U.S. 297 (1883) U.S. Supreme Court Walsh v. Preston, 109 U.S. 297 (1883) Walsh v. Preston Argued March 13-14, 1883 Decided November 19, 1883 109 U.S. 297 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Syllabus Prior to 1844, the Congress of Texas authorized contracts to be made for settling emigrant families on vacant lands to be designated in the contracts. Subsequently that Congress passed an act to repeal this law, and presented it to the President of Texas for his signature. He vetoed the repealing act. Congress then passed it over the veto. While the repealing act was thus suspended, the president contracted with one Mercer and associates to settle families on a designated tract, capable of identification. Preston, the appellant in one suit and appellee in the other, was assignee under Mercer. In February, 1845, the Congress of Texas enacted that on failure of the associates to have the tract surveyed and mar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-05-1883
Louisiana v. Jumel - 107 U.S. 711 (1883) U.S. Supreme Court Louisiana v. Jumel, 107 U.S. 711 (1883) Louisiana v. Jumel Decided March 5, 1883 107 U.S. 711 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Syllabus 1. By force of the act of the legislature of Louisiana known as Act No. 3 of 1814, and the constitutional amendment adopted in that year, which provided that bonds should be issued under that act in exchange for valid outstanding bonds and warrants at the rate of sixty cents in the new bonds for one dollar of the old bonds and warrants, the state entered into a formal contract, the obligation of which it was forbidden by the Constitution of the United States to impair, and thereby stipulated with each holder of the new bonds so issued that an annual tax of five and one-half mills on the dollar of the assessed value of all the real and personal property in the state should be levied and collected, and the income therefrom applied so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-22-1883
Ambler v. Choteau - 107 U.S. 586 (1883) U.S. Supreme Court Ambler v. Choteau, 107 U.S. 586 (1883) Ambler v. Choteau Decided January 22, 1883 107 U.S. 586 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI Syllabus Where the object of a suit in chancery is the recovery of the damages which the complainant alleges that he has sustained by reason of an unlawful and fraudulent conspiracy to cheat him out of his interest in an original invention, which is the subject matter of the controversy, the bill should be dismissed, as his remedy is at law. MR. JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a suit in equity, and the case made by the bill may be stated as follows: Ambler, the appellant, and one R. M. Whipple, invented an improved mode of manufacturing gas from petroleum, for which they were about to apply for patents, and being desirous of securing each to the other one undivided half of what they were doing, on the 24th of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Dec-03-1883
Cunningham v. Macon & Brunswick R. Co. - 109 U.S. 446 (1883) U.S. Supreme Court Cunningham v. Macon & Brunswick R. Co., 109 U.S. 446 (1883) Cunningham v. Macon and Brunswick Railroad Company Argued November 2, 5, 1883 Decided December 3, 1883 109 U.S. 446 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA Syllabus 1. The State of Georgia endorsed the bonds of a railroad company, taking a lien upon the railroad as security. The company failing to pay interest upon the endorsed bonds, the governor of the state took possession of the road and put it into the hands of a receiver, who made sale of it to the state. The state then took possession of it and took up the endorsed bonds, substituting the bonds of the state in their place. The holders of an issue of mortgage bonds issued by the railroad company subsequently to those endorsed by the state, but before the default in payment of interest, filed a bill in equity to foreclose their own mor...
Tag this Judgment!