Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-13-1912
Choate v. Trapp - 224 U.S. 665 (1912) U.S. Supreme Court Choate v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665 (1912) Choate v. Trapp No. 809 Argued February 23, 1912 Decided May 13, 1912 224 U.S. 665 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Syllabus There is a broad distinction between the power to abrogate a statute and to destroy rights acquired under it, and while Congress, under its plenary power over Indian tribes, can amend or repeal an agreement by a later statute, it cannot destroy actually existing individual rights of property acquired under a former statute or agreement. The individual Choctaw and Chickasaw Indian had no title or enforceable right in tribal property, but Congress recognized his equitable interest therein in the Curtis Act of June 28, 1898, 30 Stat. 505, and offered to give to him, in consideration of his consenting to the distribution, an allotment of nontaxable land, and the acceptance of the patent by each member of the tribe was on the consideration of r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-26-1912
United States v. Southern Pacific R. Co. - 223 U.S. 565 (1912) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 223 U.S. 565 (1912) United States v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company No. 128, 129 Argued January 26, 1912 Decided February 26, 1912 223 U.S. 565 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus An indemnity grant, like the residuary clause in a will, contemplates the uncertain and looks to the future, and what the party entitled may elect to select depends upon the state of the lands at the time of selection. Ryan v. Railroad Company, 99 U. S. 382 . Under the main line grant made to the Southern Pacific Railroad Company by the Act of July 27, 1866, c. 278, 18, 14 Stat. 292, the company can select lieu lands within the primary limits of the grant made to the Atlantic & Pacific Railroad Company by 3 of Page 223 U. S. 566 the same act and forfeited under the Act of July 6, 1886, c. 637, 24 Stat. 123. Southern Pacific Rail...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-11-1912
Henry v. A. B. Dick Co. - 224 U.S. 1 (1912) U.S. Supreme Court Henry v. A. B. Dick Co., 224 U.S. 1 (1912) Henry v. A. B. Dick Company * No. 20 Argued October 27, 1911 Decided March 11, 1912 224 U.S. 1 ON A CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Complainant sold his patented machine embodying the invention claimed and described in the patent, and attached to the machine a license restriction that it only be used in connection with certain unpatented articles made by the vendor of the machine; with the knowledge of such license agreement and with the expectation that it would be used in connection with the said machine, defendant sold to the vendee of the machine an unpatented article of the class Page 224 U. S. 2 described in the license restriction. Held that the act of defendant constituted contributory infringement of complainant's patent. This Court does not prescribe the jurisdiction of courts, federal or state, but only give...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-08-1912
Crozier v. Krupp - 224 U.S. 290 (1912) U.S. Supreme Court Crozier v. Krupp, 224 U.S. 290 (1912) Crozier v. Krupp No. 8 Argued April 30, 1911 Decided April 8, 1912 224 U.S. 290 CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus Prior to the passage of the Act of June 25, 1910, 36 Stat. 851, c. 423, a patentee whose patent was infringed by an officer of the United States could not sue the United States unless a contract to pay was implied, and the object of the statute is to afford a remedy under circumstances where no contract can be implied, but where the Page 224 U. S. 291 property rights of the inventor have been appropriated by an officer of the United States for its benefit and the Acts of such officer ratified by the government by the adoption of such act. Compensation for property taken under eminent domain need not necessarily be made in advance of the taking if adequate means be provided for a reasonably just and prompt ascertainment and paym...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Dec-02-1912
Beach v. United States - 226 U.S. 243 (1912) U.S. Supreme Court Beach v. United States, 226 U.S. 243 (1912) Beach v. United States No. 7 Argued October 30, 1912 Decided December 2, 1912 226 U.S. 243 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus Recitals by the Court of Claims of the documents upon which the claimant's case alone can rest with a history of the transaction and an express finding that the evidence does not establish the transfer to the government of that for which claimant demands compensation, with negative findings of claimant's title, are sufficient findings of the ultimate facts to conform to the rules. Whether claimant's claim rests upon an express or an implied purchase by an officer of the government, a lack of power on the part of that officer is a fundamental objection. The provision in the Post Office Appropriation Act of July 13, 1892, 27 Stat. 145, c. 165, authorizing the Postmaster General to examine into transportation of mail by pneumatic tubes did ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-08-1912
United States v. Societe Anonyme - 224 U.S. 309 (1912) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Societe Anonyme, 224 U.S. 309 (1912) United States v. Societe Anonyme des Anciens Etablissements Cail No. 209, 210 Argued March 12, 13, 1912 Decided April 8, 1912 224 U.S. 309 APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus In order to find that there was an implied contract for use of a patent, there must be use with patentee's agent and agreement to pay something therefor, United States v. Berdan Fire Arms Company, 156 U. S. 552 , and these element may be collected from conduct of the parties, even if there are no explicit declarations. Where the facts show that the patentee consented that the government use his invention, and the proper officer of the department in which it was used have stated that there is a claim for royalties if the patent is a valid one, the claim is founded on contract, and the Court of Claim has jurisdiction. The intention to plainly do a wrongful act by deli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-29-1912
Goat v. United States - 224 U.S. 458 (1912) U.S. Supreme Court Goat v. United States, 224 U.S. 458 (1912) Goat v. United States No. 405 Argued October 12, 13, 1911 Decided April 29, 1912 224 U.S. 458 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Heckman v. United States, ante, p. 224 U. S. 413 , followed to effect that the United States has capacity to maintain a suit in equity to set aside conveyances of allotted lands made by allottee Indians in violation of statutory restrictions. The question in this case is: what are the restrictions In the case of allotments to Seminole freedmen? Page 224 U. S. 459 The relations of the United States to Seminole freedmen by treaties and statutes reviewed, and held that the United States is entitled to maintain an action to set aside all conveyances made by Seminole freedmen of homestead lands, of surplus lands made by minor allottees, and by adult allottees if made prior to April 21, 1904, but that su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-01-1912
Heckman v. United States - 224 U.S. 413 (1912) U.S. Supreme Court Heckman v. United States, 224 U.S. 413 (1912) Heckman v. United States No. 496 Argued October 12, 13, 1911 Decided April 1, 1912 224 U.S. 413 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The United States has capacity to maintain a suit to set aside conveyances made by allottee Indians of allotted lands within the statutory period of restriction, and this suit brought against numerous defendants, all of whom were grantees of allottees of the same tribe, is properly maintainable in equity; the return of the consideration to the grantee is not essential; there is no defect of parties because the allottee Indians making the conveyances are not joined; there is no misjoinder of causes of action, and the bill is not multifarious. Congress has power to extend the restrictions upon alienation of allotted lands by allottee Indians, Tiger v. Western Investment Co., 221 U. S. 286 , and s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Nov-18-1912
Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co. v. United States - 226 U.S. 20 (1912) U.S. Supreme Court Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co. v. United States, 226 U.S. 20 (1912) Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Company v. United States No. 55 Argued October 15, 16, 17, 1912 Decided November 18, 1912 226 U.S. 20 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Syllabus A trade agreement under which manufacturers, who prior thereto were independent and competitive, combined and subjected themselves to certain rules and regulations, among others, limiting output and sales of their product and quantity, vendees, and price, held in this case to he illegal under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of July 2, 1890. Montague v. Lowry, 193 U. S. 38 . A trade agreement involving the right of all parties thereto to use a certain patent, which transcends what is necessary to protect the Page 226 U. S. 21 use of the patent or the monopoly thereof as conferred by law and controls the ou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-27-1912
Johannessen v. United States - 225 U.S. 227 (1912) U.S. Supreme Court Johannessen v. United States, 225 U.S. 227 (1912) Johannessen v. United States No. 230 Submitted April 22, 1912 Decided May 27, 1912 225 U.S. 227 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus Prior decisions of this Court holding that a judgment of a competent court admitting a person to citizenship is, like every other judgment, competent evidence of its own validity, go no further than protecting the judgment from collateral attack. Congress may authorize direct proceedings to attack certificates of citizenship on the ground of fraud and illegality, and 15 of the Act of June 29, 1906, 34 Stat. 596, 601, c. 3592, providing for such cases, is a valid exercise of the power of Congress under Art. I, 8 of the Constitution of the United States. The foundation of the doctrine of res judicata or estoppel by judgment is that both parties have had their...
Tag this Judgment!