Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-03-1918
United States v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co. - 247 U.S. 310 (1918) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 247 U.S. 310 (1918) United States v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company No. 75 Argued January 15, 16, 1918 Decided June 3, 1918 247 U.S. 310 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The Act of March 2, 1896, c. 39, 29 Stat. 42, limiting the time within which suits may be brought to vacate land patents, contains a proviso "that no suit shall be brought or maintained, nor shall recovery be had for lands or the value thereof, that were certified or patented in lieu of other lands covered by a grant which were lost or relinquished by the grantee in consequence of the failure of the government or its officers to withdraw the same from sale or entry." Held, that the proviso was a curative measure referring only to lands patented before the enactment, and was no protection for a patent procured afterwards by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-15-1918
United States v. Whited & Wheless, Ltd. - 246 U.S. 552 (1918) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Whited & Wheless, Ltd., 246 U.S. 552 (1918) United States v. Whited & Wheless, Limited No. 204 Submitted March 19, 1918 Decided April 15, 1918 246 U.S. 552 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The provision in the Act of March 3, 1891, 8, 26 Stat. 1099, that "suits by the United States to vacate and annul patents hereafter issued shall only be brought within six years after the date of the issuance of such patents," was designed for the security of patent titles, and does not apply to an action at law to recover the value of patented land as damages for deceit practiced by the defendant in procuring the patent. A statute of limitations should be strictly construed in favor of the government. Where there are two remedies for the protection of the same right, one may be barred and the other not. The provision in the Act of March 2, 1896, limi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-07-1918
United States v. J. S. Stearns Lumber Co. - 245 U.S. 436 (1918) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. J. S. Stearns Lumber Co., 245 U.S. 436 (1918) United States v. J. S. Stearns Lumber Company No. 94 Argued December 18, 1917 Decided January 7, 1918 245 U.S. 436 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN Syllabus By the treaty of 1842, proclaimed in 1843, 7 Stat. 591, the Lake Superior Chippewas ceded lands in Wisconsin, reserving privileges of occupancy until removed by the President. Wisconsin was admitted in 1848. The treaty of 1854, proclaimed in 1855, 10 Stat. 1109, set apart from the ceded lands a reservation for the Indians, their occupancy not having been disturbed in the meantime, and provided for surveying this reserved land and for allotting it in severalty at the discretion of the President. Allotment patents were issued accordingly in 1907, withholding all right of alienation without the President's consent, and unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Dec-23-1918
International News Service v. Associated Press - 248 U.S. 215 (1918) U.S. Supreme Court International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918) International News Service v. Associated Press No. 221 Argued May 2, 3, 1918 Decided December 23, 1918 248 U.S. 215 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus An incorporated association of proprietors and representatives of many newspapers, engaged in gathering news and distributing it to its members for publication, is a proper party to represent them in a suit to protect their interests in news so collected against the illegal acts of a rival organization. Equity Rule 38. P. 248 U. S. 233 . The right to object to the nonjoinder of parties may be treated as Page 248 U. S. 216 waived if not made specifically in the courts below. Equity Rules 43, 44. P. 248 U. S. 233 . A news article in a newspaper may be copyrighted under the Act of March 4, 1909, but news, as such, is not copyrig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-03-1918
Jefferson v. Fink - 247 U.S. 288 (1918) U.S. Supreme Court Jefferson v. Fink, 247 U.S. 288 (1918) Jefferson v. Fink No. 242 Argued March 22, 25, 1918 Decided June 3, 1918 247 U.S. 288 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Syllabus The policy and legislation of Congress respecting the descent of Indian allotments, particularly in the Five Civilized Tribes, reviewed. An allotment made under the Supplemental Creek Agreement (Act of June 30, 1902, c. 1323, 32 Stat. 500) before the admission of the State of Oklahoma, to a Creek Freedman who died after the state's admission, descends (as among claimants who are all members of the Creek Tribe) according to the law of that state. The Oklahoma Enabling Act of June 16, 1906, substituted in this respect the law of the state -- i.e., the law of the Territory of Oklahoma as extended to, and as it might be changed by, the state -- for the law of Arkansas, Mansfield's Digest, c. 49, which had been adopted provisionally i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-20-1918
United States v. United Shoe Machinery Co. - 247 U.S. 32 (1918) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. United Shoe Machinery Co., 247 U.S. 32 (1918) United States v. United Shoe Machinery Company No. 207 Argued March 16, 19, 20, 21, 1917 Restored to docket for reargument May 21, 1917 Reargued January 11, 14, 15, 1918 Decided May 20, 1918 247 U.S. 32 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus Where the evidence is strongly conflicting, especial weight attaches to the findings of a trial court whose judges saw and heard the witnesses. Applying this principle, the Court holds, with the court below, that the evidence does not sustain the charges of unlawful restraint of interstate commerce in shoe machinery, and monopoly thereof, in the formation and conduct of the United Shoe Machinery Company. In determining whether a combination restrains interstate commerce injuriously to the public, the foremost inquiry is whether the in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-04-1918
Boston Store v. American Graphophone Co. - 246 U.S. 8 (1918) U.S. Supreme Court Boston Store v. American Graphophone Co., 246 U.S. 8 (1918) Boston Store v. American Graphophone Company No. 363 Argued January 16, 1918 Decided March 4, 1918 246 U.S. 8 CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Certificates of the facts constituting the basis for questions propounded to this Court by the circuit court of appeals should be prepared with care and precision. Where the bill in the district court claimed protection for a price-fixing contract under the patent laws, and the want of merit in the claim was not so conclusively settled by decision when the bill was filed as to make the claim frivolous, the court had jurisdiction to pass upon the case as made by the bill -- that is, to determine whether the suit arose under those laws. Page 246 U. S. 9 Where a patent owner delivers patented articles to a dealer by a transaction which, essentially co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-04-1918
Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. v. Simon - 246 U.S. 46 (1918) U.S. Supreme Court Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. v. Simon, 246 U.S. 46 (1918) Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of America v. Simon No. 168 Argued January 29, 1918 Decided March 4, 1918 246 U.S. 46 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus The Navy Department accepted respondent's proposal to furnish certain sets of wireless telegraph appliances, the bid having been based on the Department's specification describing the appliances desired and upon a sample submitted with the bid as the Department required. Before the contract was completed, this suit was brought to restrain him from making or delivering, upon the ground that petitioner's patent rights would thereby be infringed. In the courts below, a decree dismissing the bill was made and affirmed upon the ground that the infringement, whether direct or contributory intrinsically, was not unlawful in view of the Act of June 25,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-04-1918
Cramp & Sons Co. v. Curtis Turbine Co. - 246 U.S. 28 (1918) U.S. Supreme Court Cramp & Sons Co. v. Curtis Turbine Co., 246 U.S. 28 (1918) Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Company v. International Curtis Marine Turbine Company No. 393 Argued January 29, 30, 1918 Decided March 4, 1918 246 U.S. 28 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Syllabus The Act of June 25, 1910, c. 423, 36 Stat. 851, providing, in part, that, when patented inventions are used by the United States without license from the owner or lawful right, the owner may recover reasonable compensation for such use in the Court of Claims, is not to be construed as automatically conferring a general license on the government to use such inventions and as thereby authorizing their use at the will of private parties in the manufacture of things to be furnished under contracts between them and the United States. Page 246 U. S. 29 Where, therefore, a company entered into a contract with th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Dec-09-1918
Ruddy v. Rossi - 248 U.S. 104 (1918) U.S. Supreme Court Ruddy v. Rossi, 248 U.S. 104 (1918) Ruddy v. Rossi No. 17 Submitted November 13, 1918 Decided December 9, 1918 248 U.S. 104 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Syllabus Section 4 of the Homestead Act of May 20, 1862 ( 2296, Rev.Stats.), providing that no lands acquired under the act shall, in any event, become liable to the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the issuance of patent therefor, applies as well to debts contracted after final entry and before patent as to debts contracted before final proof, and in both respects is within the constitutional power of Congress. 28 Idaho 376 reversed. The case is stated in the opinion. Page 248 U. S. 105 MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court. By "An act to secure homesteads to actual settlers on the public domain," approved May 20, 1862, c. 75, 12 Stat. 392, Congress prescribed the conditions under which citizens could acquire un...
Tag this Judgment!