Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-11-1897
Warner Valley Stock Co. v. Smith - 165 U.S. 28 (1897) U.S. Supreme Court Warner Valley Stock Co. v. Smith, 165 U.S. 28 (1897) Warner Valley Stock Company v. Smith No. 550 Argued December 17-18, 1896 Decided January 11, 1897 165 U.S. 28 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus A bill in equity against the Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of the General Land Office to restrain them from exercising further jurisdiction with respect to the disposition of certain public lands, and from further trespassing upon the plaintiff's right of quiet possession thereof, and to compel the Secretary to prepare patents therefor to be issued to the plaintiff in accordance with law, and to the end that the plaintiff's title may be quieted and freed from cloud, and for further relief, abates, as to the Secretary, upon his resignation of his office, and cannot afterwards be maintained against the Commissioner alone. The case is stated in the opinion. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-12-1897
In re Hien - 166 U.S. 432 (1897) U.S. Supreme Court In re Hien, 166 U.S. 432 (1897) In re Hien No. 16. Original Argued March 22, 1897 Decided April 12, 1897 166 U.S. 432 ORIGINAL Syllabus The Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia was duly authorized by 6 of the act creating the court, as well as by 6 as amended by the act of July 20, 1894, to make rules limiting the time of taking appeals to the court from the decisions of the Commissioner of Patents, and there was no restriction on this power by reason of Rev.Stat. 4894. The case is stated in the opinion. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the court. The Commissioner of Patents, in an interference proceeding between Philip Hien and one William A. Pungs, awarded priority of the invention in controversy to Pungs, June 9, 1894. Hien gave notice to the Commissioner, March 12, 1896, of an appeal from his decision, under 4912 of the Revised Statutes, to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-15-1897
United States v. Winona & St. Peter R. Co. - 165 U.S. 463 (1897) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Winona & St. Peter R. Co., 165 U.S. 463 (1897) United States v. Winona and St. Peter Railroad Company No. 321 Argued November 30, December 1, 1896 Decided February 15, 1897 165 U.S. 463 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus In view of the fact that many years have passed since the certification of the lands in controversy, and since the railroad company, in reliance upon the title which it believed it had acquired, disposed of them, and that other parties have become interested in them, and have dealt with them as private property, the appellees are justified in saying that they have large claims upon the equitable consideration of the courts. The Act of March 3, 1887, 24 Stat. 556, providing for the adjustment of land grants made by Congress to aid in the construction of railroads, and the Act of March 2, 1896, 29 Stat. 42, operated to co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Oct-18-1897
Southern Pacific R. Co. v. United States - 168 U.S. 1 (1897) U.S. Supreme Court Southern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 168 U.S. 1 (1897) Southern Pacific Railroad Company v. United States No. 71 Argued December 2-3, 1896 Decided October 18, 1897 168 U.S. 1 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The cases of United States v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 146 U. S. 570 , and United States v. Colton Marble & Lime Co. and United States' v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 146 U. S. 615 , held to have adjudged, as between the United States and the Southern Pacific Railroad Company: (1) That the maps filed by the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Company in 1872 were sufficient, as maps of definite location, to identify the lands granted to that company by the Act of Congress of July 27, 1866, c. 278, 14 Stat. 292; (2) That, upon the acceptance of those maps by the Land Department, the rights of that company in the lands so granted attached, by re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-19-1897
Northern Pacific R. Co. v. Sanders - 166 U.S. 620 (1897) U.S. Supreme Court Northern Pacific R. Co. v. Sanders, 166 U.S. 620 (1897) Northern Pacific Railroad Company v. Sanders No. 12 Argued March 12, 1897 Decided April 19, 1897 166 U.S. 620 ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Lands were expressly excepted from the grant made in 1864 for the benefit of the Northern Pacific Railroad, which were not free from preemption "or other claims or rights" at the time the line of the road was definitely fixed and a plat thereof filed in the office of the Commissioner of the General Land Office. The general route of the railroad was fixed February 21, 1872, and its line of definite location on the 6th of July, 1882. After the company filed a map of general route, the Commissioner of the General Land Office, under the directions of the Secretary of the Interior, April 22, 1872, transmitted a diagram of that route to the register and receiver of the land office a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Dec-18-1897
Michigan Land & Lumber Co. v. Rust - 168 U.S. 589 (1897) U.S. Supreme Court Michigan Land & Lumber Co. v. Rust, 168 U.S. 589 (1897) Michigan Land & Lumber Company v. Rust No. 57 Argued October 25-26, 1897 Decided December 18, 1897 168 U.S. 589 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The Act of September 28, 1850, c. 84, granting swamp lands to the several states, was a grant in praesenti, passing title to all lands which at that date were swamp lands, but leaving to the Secretary of the Interior to determine and identify what lands were, and what lands were not, swamp lands. Whenever the granting act specifically provides for the issue of a patent, the legal title remains in the government until its issue, with power to inquire into the extent and validity of rights claimed against the government. Although a survey had been made of the lands in controversy which indicated that they were swamp lands, it was within the power of the land office...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-19-1897
Allen v. Culp - 166 U.S. 501 (1897) U.S. Supreme Court Allen v. Culp, 166 U.S. 501 (1897) Allen v. Culp No. 252 Argued and submitted March 30, 1897 Decided April 19, 1897 166 U.S. 501 ERROR TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, No. 4, FOR THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus When letters patent are surrendered for the purpose of reissue, they continue valid until the reissue takes place, and if the reissue is refused they stand as if no application had been made. Whether, if the reissue be void, the patentee may fall back on his original patent is not decided. This was an action originally instituted in the Court of Common Pleas for the County of Philadelphia by the defendant in error, Andrew J. Culp, against Alonzo W. Allen, to recover half of the profits made by the defendant from a certain Page 166 U. S. 502 patent for a cop and bobbin winding machine, granted jointly to Culp and Allen, and subsequently assigned to the defendant Allen. The alleged cons...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Dec-06-1897
Thompson v. Maxwell Land Grant & Ry. Co. - 168 U.S. 451 (1897) U.S. Supreme Court Thompson v. Maxwell Land Grant & Ry. Co., 168 U.S. 451 (1897) Thompson v. Maxwell Land Grant and Railway Company No. 91 Argued November 2-3, 1897 Decided December 6, 1897 168 U.S. 451 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO Syllabus That which has been decided on one appeal or writ of error cannot be reexamined on a second appeal or writ of error brought in the same suit. Whenever a case comes from the highest court of a state for review, and, by statute or settled practice in that state, the opinion of the court is a part of the record, this Court may examine such opinion for the purpose of ascertaining the grounds of the judgment. Although the judgment and the mandate in a given case in this Court express its decision, it may examine the opinion for the purpose of determining what matters were considered, upon what grounds the judgment was entered, and what has become ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-24-1897
Menotti v. Dillon - 167 U.S. 703 (1897) U.S. Supreme Court Menotti v. Dillon, 167 U.S. 703 (1897) Menotti v. Dillon No. 309 Submitted April 28, 1897 Decided May 24, 1897 167 U.S. 703 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus The land in controversy, being 240 acres situated in California, was settled upon and improved in good faith by H. in 1858, with the intention of taking at the proper time, the necessary steps to acquire the title thereto from the United States by procuring its location in part satisfaction of the grant made by the United States to the State of California of 500,900 acres of land, and then of purchasing the land in question from the state. In June, 1864, H., in proper form, made application to the state, under the act of California approved April 27, 1863, for the sale of certain lands, to locate this land as a "lieu school land location," and to purchase it from the state. This application and offer to purchase were approved by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-15-1897
Smith v. Vulcan Iron Works - 165 U.S. 518 (1897) U.S. Supreme Court Smith v. Vulcan Iron Works, 165 U.S. 518 (1897) Smith v. Vulcan Iron Works Nos. 200, 639 Argued January 19, 1897 Decided February 15, 1897 165 U.S. 518 PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Under the Act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, 7, an appeal to the circuit court of appeals from an interlocutory order or decree of the circuit court granting an injunction and ordering an account in a patent case may be from the whole order or decree, and upon such an appeal, the circuit court of appeals may consider and decide the case on its merits, and thereupon render or direct a final decree dismissing the bill. In each of these cases, the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, upon a bill in equity for the infringement of a patent for an invention, an answer denying the validity and the infringement of the patent, a general replica...
Tag this Judgment!