Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1872
Davis v. Gray - 83 U.S. 203 (1872) U.S. Supreme Court Davis v. Gray, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 203 203 (1872) Davis v. Gray 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 203 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Syllabus 1. In this case -- where a person who had been appointed receiver of a railroad to which a large grant of lands had been made by a state was seeking to enjoin the officers of the state which had declared the lands forfeited, from granting them to other persons -- the Court states at large what is the office and what are the duties of a receiver, giving to them a liberal interpretation in aid of the jurisdiction of the court. It says that in the progress and growth of equity jurisdiction, it has become usual to clothe them with much larger powers than were formerly conferred; that in some of the states, they are by statute charged with the duty of settling the affairs of certain corporations when insolvent, and are authorized expressly to sue in their own names, and that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1872
Branson v. Wirth - 84 U.S. 32 (1872) U.S. Supreme Court Branson v. Wirth, 84 U.S. 17 Wall. 32 32 (1872) Branson v. Wirth 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 32 I N ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus The government, as appeared by the exemplification of the record of a patent, had granted, January 10, 1818, to A. the northeast quarter of a certain tract of land, in pursuance confessedly of a warrant and location upon that quarter; the exemplification of the record of the patent, however, showing that eight years after the date of the patent, a "memorandum" bad been made [by whom did not appear] on this record, that the patent itself was issued for the south east quarter. The government had confessedly issued a patent to Z. for this south east quarter on the 7th of January, 1818 -- that is to say, three days before the date of the patent to A. -- for whatever corner the patent to A. really was. In 1819, A. conveyed to B. the south east corner, de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1872
Tyler v. Magwire - 84 U.S. 253 (1872) U.S. Supreme Court Tyler v. Magwire, 84 U.S. 17 Wall. 253 253 (1872) Tyler v. Magwire 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 253 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI Syllabus The Supreme Court of the State of Missouri, on appeal, dismissed a petition which sought to have the title to lands held by the defendant, under a patent from the United States, divested, and vested in the complainant. From this decree of dismissal a writ of error brought up the case under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act, the complainant claiming the land under a former patent from the United States. Page 84 U. S. 254 This Court determined that the legal title to the premises was in the complainant under the second patent, reversed the decree, and remanded the cause "for further proceedings in conformity to the opinion of the court" ( 75 U. S. 8 Wall. 672). The opinion given declared also that on the merits (which were gone into, and in which utterance was given as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1872
Holden v. Joy - 84 U.S. 211 (1872) U.S. Supreme Court Holden v. Joy, 84 U.S. 17 Wall. 211 211 (1872) Holden v. Joy 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 211 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Syllabus 1. The treaty of the 29th December, 1835, between the United States and the Cherokee Indians, was not made in virtue of the act of 28th of May, 1830, authorizing an "exchange" of lands west of the Mississippi for the territory claimed or occupied by any tribe of Indians within the limits of any state or territory, but was made under the treatymaking power vested by the Constitution in the President and Senate. 2. The Indian tribes are capable of taking as owners in fee simple lands by purchase where the United States in form, and for a valuable and adequate consideration, so sell them to them. 3. Such sale is properly made by a treaty. 4. The above-mentioned Treaty of 29 December, 1835, made such a sale to the Cherokee Indians of the lands west of the Mississippi, known as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1872
State Tax on Railway Gross Receipts - 82 U.S. 284 (1872) U.S. Supreme Court State Tax on Railway Gross Receipts, 82 U.S. 15 Wall. 284 284 (1872) State Tax on Railway Gross Receipts 82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 284 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus 1. A statute of a state imposing a tax upon the gross receipts of railroad companies is not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, though the gross receipts are made up in part from freights received for transportation of merchandise from the state to another state or into the state from another. 2. Such a tax is not a regulation, of interstate commerce. 3. Nor is it a tax on imports or exports. 4. Nor is it a tax upon interstate transportation. 5. A distinction made between a tax upon freights carried between states because of their carriage and a tax upon the fruits of such transportation after they have become intermingled with the other property of the carrier. By an Act of the Legislature of Pennsylvani...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1872
Cofield v. McClelland - 83 U.S. 331 (1872) U.S. Supreme Court Cofield v. McClelland, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 331 331 (1872) Cofield v. McClelland 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 331 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE TERRITORY OF COLORADO Syllabus 1. A bill to compel a conveyance from a person to whom the Probate Judge of Arapahoe County, Colorado Territory (in which county is situated Denver), had conveyed a lot in pursuance of the Acts of Congress of May 23, 1844, and May 28, 1864, for the relief of the City of Denver, and of the Act of Colorado Territory of March 11, 1864, dismissed: 1st. Because the defendant was in possession of the lot in question at the time of the passage of the act for the relief of the City of Denver, and at the time of the entry of the lands made by the probate judge, by means of which he became and was the party by law entitled to the deed from the probate judge, and, 2d. Because the appellant, by omitting to sign and deliver the statement required by section fou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1872
Slaughterhouse Cases - 83 U.S. 36 (1872) U.S. Supreme Court Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 36 36 (1872) Slaughterhouse Cases * 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA 1. The legislature of Louisiana, on the 8th of March, 1869, passed an act granting to a corporation, created by it, the exclusive right, for twenty-five years, to have and maintain slaughterhouses, landings for cattle, and yards for inclosing cattle intended for sale or slaughter within the parishes of Orleans, Jefferson, and St. Bernard, in that State (a territory which, it was said -- see infra, p. 83 U. S. 85 -- contained 1154 square miles, including the city of New Orleans, and a population of between two and three hundred thousand people), and prohibiting all other persons from building, keeping, or having slaughterhouses, landings for cattle, and yards for cattle intended for sale or slaughter, within those limits, and requiring that all cattle and other animals intended for...
Tag this Judgment!