Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-11-1921
Baldwin Co. v. R. S. Howard Co. - 256 U.S. 35 (1921) U.S. Supreme Court Baldwin Co. v. R. S. Howard Co., 256 U.S. 35 (1921) Baldwin Co. v. R. S. Howard Co. Nos. 139 and 113 Argued January 14, 1921 Decided April 11, 1921 256 U.S. 35 APPEAL FROM AND ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus 1. A decision made by the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia upon an appeal from the Commissioner of Patents under 9 of the Trade-Mark Act of February 20, 1905, is not reviewable in this Court by appeal or certiorari under 250, 251 of the Judicial Code, Page 256 U. S. 36 since such decisions are merely certified to the Commissioner to govern his further proceeding in the case, as in patent matter (R.S., 4914), and are not therefore final judgments. P. 256 U. S. 38 . 2. Assumption of jurisdiction by this Court in a case where no question of jurisdiction was raised or considered does not establish its jurisdiction over t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Nov-21-1921
Kern River Co. v. United States - 257 U.S. 147 (1921) U.S. Supreme Court Kern River Co. v. United States, 257 U.S. 147 (1921) Kern River Co. v. United States No. 50 Argued October 20, 21, 1921 Decided November 21, 1921 257 U.S. 147 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. A right of way through public lands or reservations, obtained through an approval by the Secretary of the Interior of an application under the Act of March 3, 1891, c. 561, 18-21, 26 Stat. 1095, is neither an easement nor a fee simple absolute, but a limited fee on implied condition of reverter in the event the grantee ceases to use or retain the land for the purpose named in the act -- irrigation. P. 257 U. S. 151 . 2. The Act of May 14, 1896, c. 179, 29 Stat. 120, which made special provision for rights of way through public lands and forest reservations for the purpose of developing electric power, allowing a revocable permit or license and not a limited fee, was su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-11-1921
United States - 256 U.S. 51 (1921) U.S. Supreme Court United States, 256 U.S. 51 (1921) United States No. 325 Argued October 7, 1920 Decided April 11, 1921 256 U.S. 51 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. The Northern Pacific Railroad Act of July 2, 1864, G. 217, 13 Stat. 365, and the Joint Resolution of May 31, 1870, 16 Stat. 378, embodied a proposal that, if the company would bring about the construction and operation of the railroad, desired for the advantage of the government and the public, it should receive in return the land comprehended by the granting provisions of the legislation. P. 256 U. S. 63 . 2. By the company's acceptance of this proposal, followed by construction and operation of the railroad and acceptance of the railroad by the President, the proposal was converted into a contract, entitling the company to performance by the government. P. 256 U. S. 64 . 3. The provision relating to indemnity land was as much a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-01-1921
United States v. Pfitsch - 256 U.S. 547 (1921) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Pfitsch, 256 U.S. 547 (1921) United States v. Pfitsch No. 246 Argued March 22, 1921 Restored to docket for reargument on question of jurisdiction April 11, 1921 Reargued April 25, 1921 Decided June 1, 1921 256 U.S. 547 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus Section 10 of the Lever Act (August 10, 1917, c. 53, 40 Stat. 276, 279), providing that any person dissatisfied with the President's award for supplies requisitioned under that section shall receive 75% of the award and may sue the United States for the balance claimed, confers jurisdiction on the district court "to hear and determine all such controversies," while other sections of the act providing for requisition Page 256 U. S. 548 and award in respect of other classes of property, entitle persons dissatisfied to sue the United States "in the manner provided by 24, par. 20, a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-07-1921
Winton v. Amos - 255 U.S. 373 (1921) U.S. Supreme Court Winton v. Amos, 255 U.S. 373 (1921) Winton v. Amos Nos. 12 Argued January 14, 15, 1919 Restored to docket for reargument January 5, 1920 Reargued April 21, 22, 1920 Decided March 7, 1921 255 U.S. 373 APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus 1. The acts authorizing these suits against Mississippi Choctaws (April 26, 1906, c. 1876, 9, 34 Stat. 140; May 29, 1908, c. 21, 27, 35 Stat. 457) contemplate not an action in personam to establish Page 255 U. S. 374 personal liability against individual Indians, or a group of them, but an equitable class suit against those who, by successfully asserting citizenship in the Choctaw Nation, acquired allotments out of the tribal land and participation in funds held in trust by the United States, to impose an equitable charge upon their lands and interests so acquired for a reasonable and proportionate contribution towards the value of the services rendered and expenses incurred ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-11-1921
Chase, Jr. v. United States - 256 U.S. 1 (1921) U.S. Supreme Court Chase, Jr. v. United States, 256 U.S. 1 (1921) Chase, Jr. v. United States No. 242 Argued March 21, 22, 1921 Decided April 11, 1921 256 U.S. 1 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. The cession made by the Omaha Indians through the treaties of 1854 and 1865, the provision made by the latter for assigning parcels, in the retained reservation, to members of the tribe in severalty, for the exclusive use of themselves, their heirs, and descendants, the provisions made by the Act of 1882 (and the Act of 1893) for granting allotments in severalty in trust for 25 years and then in fee, and the further provision of the former act (not carried out) for conveying the unallotted residue of the reservation to the tribe in trust for a like period and then in fee discharged of the trust and of all charge and incumbrance whatsoever, did not deprive Congress of the power to make other di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-14-1921
Payne v. United States ex Rel. Newton - 255 U.S. 438 (1921) U.S. Supreme Court Payne v. United States ex Rel. Newton, 255 U.S. 438 (1921) Payne v. United States ex Rel. Newton No. 123 Argued December 16, 1920 Decided March 14, 1921 255 U.S. 438 ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus 1. After the lapse of two years from the date of the issuance of a receiver's receipt upon a final entry under the homestead law, if no contest or protest against the validity of the entry be then pending, the Land Department is required, by 7 of the Act of March 3, 1891, to issue a patent for the land. P. 255 U. S. 442 . Lane v. Hoglund, 244 U. S. 174 . 2. The purpose of this provision is to give the entryman, after the time limited, the advantage of the patent and legal title, and thus transfer any later controversy over the validity of the entry from the department to the courts. P. 255 U. S. 444 . 3. The duty to issue the patent is not suspended by the i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-01-1921
United States v. Bowling - 256 U.S. 484 (1921) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Bowling, 256 U.S. 484 (1921) United States v. Bowling No. 295 Argued April 27, 1921 Decided June 1, 1921 256 U.S. 484 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. The power of the United States to ensure, by appropriate measures, that land allotted in severalty to a tribal Indian shall enure to the benefit of the allottee and his heirs while the title is restricted for their security is no less where the allotment has been patented in fee but subject to a restriction on alienation than where only a "trust patent" has issued and the fee remains with the United States in trust to be conveyed to the allottee or his heirs free of restriction at the end of the trust period. P. 256 U. S. 486 . 2. In either case, as an incident of the power, Congress may authorize and require the Secretary of the Interior to determine the heirs of a deceased allottee and may make his d...
Tag this Judgment!