Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Oct-19-1891
United States v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. - 141 U.S. 358 (1891) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 141 U.S. 358 (1891) United States v. Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company No. 317 Argued March 10-11, 1891 Decided October 19, 1891 141 U.S. 358 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Syllabus Congress, March 3, 1863, granted to Kansas every alternate section of land, designated by odd numbers for ten sections in width on each side, in aid of the construction of the following roads and each branch thereof: first, a railroad and telegraph from the City of Leavenworth, Kansas, by the way of Lawrence and the Ohio City crossing of the Osage River, to the Southern line of the state in the direction of Galveston Bay, in Texas, with a branch from Lawrence by the valley of the Wakarusa River to the point on the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad where that road intersects the Neosho River; second, a railroad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-25-1891
United States v. Dalles Military Road Co. - 140 U.S. 599 (1891) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Dalles Military Road Co., 140 U.S. 599 (1891) United States v. Dalles Military Road Company Nos. 1218, 1219, 1248, 1444 to 1448 Argued March 8-9, 1891 Decided May 25, 1891 140 U.S. 599 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON Syllabus In suits in equity brought by the United States under the Act of Congress passed March 2, 1889, 25 stat. 850, against corporations and persons claiming to own lands granted to the State of Oregon by the Acts of Page 140 U. S. 600 Congress of July 2, 1864, 13 Stat. 355, July 5, 1866, 14 Stat. 89, and February 25, 1867, 14 Stat. 409, to declare the lands to be forfeited to the United States and to set aside, for fraud, patents granted therefor, the defendants pleaded the issuing of certificates by the governor without fraud committed upon or by him; that they were bona fide purchasers, for a valuable consi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-02-1891
St. Paul & P. R. Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co. - 139 U.S. 1 (1891) U.S. Supreme Court St. Paul & P. R. Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 139 U.S. 1 (1891) St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company v. Northern Pacific Railroad Company No. 54 Argued November 5-6, 1890 Decided March 2, 1891 139 U.S. 1 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Syllabus The grant of public land to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company in the Act of July 2, 1564, 13 Stat. c. 217, p. 360, was a grant in praesenti, in the nature of a float until the route should be determined, and, after that, attaching to specific sections, capable of identification, except as to sections which were specifically reserved. The force of such grant was in no respect impaired or its construction affected by the provision in section four of that act that patents for the land should be issued as sections of twenty-five miles of the road should be completed; but the company was not at libe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-11-1891
Marsh v. Nichols, Shepard & Co. - 140 U.S. 344 (1891) U.S. Supreme Court Marsh v. Nichols, Shepard & Co., 140 U.S. 344 (1891) Marsh v. Nichols, Shepard & Company No. 136 Argued January 6, 1891 Decided May 11, 1891 140 U.S. 344 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CALHOUN COUNTY, STATE OF MICHIGAN Syllabus A bill in equity in a state court, with jurisdiction over the parties, brought to enforce the specific performance of a contract whereby an inventor who, having taken out letters patent for his invention, agreed to transfer an interest therein to the plaintiff, and proceedings thereunder involving no question arising under the patent laws of the United States, and not questioning the validity of the patent, or considering its construction, or the patentability of the device, relate to subjects within the jurisdiction of that court, and its decree thereon raises no federal question for consideration here. In 1880, Elon A. Marsh had devised and applied for a patent upon a valve ge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-20-1891
Pennoyer v. McConnaughy - 140 U.S. 1 (1891) U.S. Supreme Court Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U.S. 1 (1891) Pennoyer v. McConnaughy No. 1280 Submitted January 5, 1891 Decided April 20, 1891 140 U.S. 1 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON Syllabus A suit in equity against the Board of Land Commissioners of the State of Oregon, brought by a purchaser of swamp and overflowed lands under the Act of October 26, 1870, in order to restrain the defendants from doing acts which the bill alleges are violations of the plaintiff's contract with the state when he purchased the lands, and which are unconstitutional, destructive of the plaintiff's rights and privileges, and which it is alleged will work irreparable damage and mischief to his property rights so acquired, is not a suit against the state within the meaning of the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The cases reviewed in which suits at law or in equity against o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-11-1891
Halsted v. Buster - 140 U.S. 273 (1891) U.S. Supreme Court Halsted v. Buster, 140 U.S. 273 (1891) Halsted v. Buster No. 325 Argued April 17, 20, 1891 Decided May 11, 1891 140 U.S. 273 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA Syllabus The act of the Legislature of Virginia of March 22, 1842, relating to lands west of the Allegheny Mountains which had become vested in the Commonwealth by reason of the nonpayment of taxes, did not operate to transfer such forfeited lands to the holder of an "inclusive grant" within the limits of which grant they were situated, but whose patent was subsequent in date to that of the patentees of the forfeited lands. Bryan v. Willard, 21 W.Va. 65, is followed not only because it settles the law of the highest court of a state upon a question of title to real estate within its boundaries, which is identical with the question involved here, but also because the decision is correct. The case is stated in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Dec-21-1891
Deseret Salt Co. v. Tarpey - 142 U.S. 241 (1891) U.S. Supreme Court Deseret Salt Co. v. Tarpey, 142 U.S. 241 (1891) Deseret Salt Company v. Tarpey No. 96 Argued and Submitted November 24, 1891 Decided December 21, 1891 142 U.S. 241 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF UTAH Syllabus The grant of public land to the Central Pacific Railroad Company by the Acts of July 1, 1862, 12 Stat. 489, c. 120, and July 2, 1864, 13 Stat. 356, c. 216, was a grant in praesenti, and the legal title to the granted land, as distinguished from merely equitable or inchoate interests, passed when the identification of a granted section became so far complete as to authorize the grantee to take possession. Rutherford v. Greene, 2 Wheat. 196, cited and followed. Patents were issued not for the purpose of transferring title, but as evidence that the grantee had complied with the conditions of the grant, and that the grant was to that extent relieved from the possibility of forfeiture f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-11-1891
St. Paul Plow Works v. Starling - 140 U.S. 184 (1891) U.S. Supreme Court St. Paul Plow Works v. Starling, 140 U.S. 184 (1891) St. Paul Plow Works v. Starling No. 329 Argued April 20-21, 1891 Decided May 11, 1891 140 U.S. 184 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Syllabus By a written agreement signed by both parties, a patentee of a plow granted to another person the right to make and sell the patented plow under the patent, in a specified territory, the latter agreeing to make the plows in a good and workmanlike manner and advertise and sell them in the usual manner, and at a price not to exceed the usual price, and account twice a year for all plows sold, and pay a specified royalty for each plow sold. After making and selling some plows, the grantee gave notice to the patentee that he renounced the license. But he afterwards made and sold plows embracing a claim of the patent. The patentee sued him to recover the agreed royalty on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-02-1891
Central Transp. Co. v. Pullman's Car Co. - 139 U.S. 24 (1891) U.S. Supreme Court Central Transp. Co. v. Pullman's Car Co., 139 U.S. 24 (1891) Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman's Palace Car Company No. 379 Argued January 28-29, 1890 Decided March 2, 1891 139 U.S. 24 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus A statute of a state which authorizes the judge presiding at the trial to order a judgment of nonsuit to be entered when in his opinion the evidence introduced by the plaintiff is insufficient in matter of law to sustain a verdict may be followed, under Rev.Stat. 914, in the circuit court of the United States held within that state, and a judgment of nonsuit rendered accordingly, upon a ruling in matter of law duly excepted to, may be reviewed by this Court on writ of error. A corporation formed by articles of association called a certificate or charter under the general laws of Pennsylvania concerning manufac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-11-1891
Mitchell v. Smale - 140 U.S. 406 (1891) U.S. Supreme Court Mitchell v. Smale, 140 U.S. 406 (1891) Mitchell v. Smale No. 167 Argued January 23, 26-27, 1891 Decided May 11, 1891 140 U.S. 406 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus Plaintiff, a citizen of Illinois, sued in ejectment to recover possession of lands in that state claimed to have been granted to plaintiff's ancestor by a patent of the United States, making the tenant a citizen of that state, defendant. The owner, under whom the tenant claimed, a citizen of New York, appeared and on his motion was made party defendant. He then set up title under another patent from the United States, and moved for a removal of the cause first, upon the ground of diverse citizenship, which was abandoned, and then, secondly, that there was a controversy involving the authority of the Land Department to grant a patent. Held that the case was removable for the second cause. ...
Tag this Judgment!