Court : US Supreme Court
PERIT v. WALLIS - 2 U.S. 252 (1796) U.S. Supreme Court PERIT v. WALLIS, 2 U.S. 252 (1796) 2 U.S. 252 (Dall.) Perit, Executrix v. Wallis Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1796 This was an action of debt, on a bond which was executed upon the 29th of January 1789, by the defendant, to Peletiah Webster, the Testator, in the penal sum of L 5000, with the following condition subjoined: 'Whereas the said Samuel Wallis did, by his deed, duly executed under his hand and seal, bearing even date with these presents, grant, bargain and sell unto the said Peletiah Webster a certain tract of land therein described, containing 12,625 acres, and contracted to make a clear title in fee, under a patent or patents from the State of Pennsylvania, for the same: And whereas patents for the said lands have Page 2 U.S. 252, 253 not yet been obtained: NOW KNOW YE, that the condition of the above obligation is such, that if the above bounden Samuel Wallis doth, within six months from th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
COM. OF PENNSYLVANIA v. COXE - 4 U.S. 170 (1800) U.S. Supreme Court COM. OF PENNSYLVANIA v. COXE, 4 U.S. 170 (1800) 4 U.S. 170 (Dall.) The Commonwealth v. Tench Coxe, Esq. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. March Term, 1800 IN September term last, a rule was obtained, on behalf of a number of persons, who had associated under the denomination of 'The Holland Company,' the the purchase and settlement of lands, lying in the county of Alleghany, north and west of the rivers Ohio and Alleghany, and west of Conewango creek, by which the secretary of the land office was directed to show cause, why a mandamus should not be awarded, commanding him to prepare and deliver patents to the company, for various tracts of land, for which warrants had previously issued in their favour, under the act of the general assembly, passed the 3d of April 1792. Theattorney-general ( M'Kean M. Levy, W. Tilghman, and Cooper, now showed cause for discharging the rule; and Lewis, E. Tilghman, Ingersoll, and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Shipp v. Miller's Heirs - 15 U.S. 316 (1817) U.S. Supreme Court Shipp v. Miller's Heirs, 15 U.S. 316 (1817) Shipp v. Miller's Heirs 15 U.S. 316 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY Syllabus An error in description is not fatal in an entry if it does not mislead a subsequent locator. The following entry, "H.M. enters one thousand six hundred and eighty-seven acres of land on a Treasury warrant, No. 6168, adjoining Chapman Aston on the west side, and Israel Christian on the north, beginning at Christian's northwest corner, running thence west two hundred poles; thence north parallel with Aston's line until an east course to Aston's line will include the quantity," was held valid although no such entry as that referred to could be found in the name of Aston, but the particular description clearly pointed out an entry in the name of Chapman Austin as the one intended, and this, together with Christian's entry, satisfied the calls of H.M.'s entry. It is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Evans v. Eaton - 16 U.S. 454 (1818) U.S. Supreme Court Evans v. Eaton, 16 U.S. 3 Wheat. 454 454 (1818) Evans v. Eaton 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 454 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus Under the sixth section of the patent law of 1793, ch. 156, the defendant pleaded the general issue and gave notice that he would prove at the trial that the machine for the use of which, without license, the suit was brought had been used previous to the alleged invention of the plaintiff in several places which were specified in the notice, or in some of them, "and also at sundry other places in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and elsewhere in the United States." The defendant having given evidence as to some of the places specified, offered evidence as to others not specified. Held, that this evidence was admissible. But the powers of the court in such a case are sufficient to prevent and will be exercised to prevent the patentee from being injured by surprise. Testimony o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Minnesota v. Lane - 247 U.S. 243 (1818) U.S. Supreme Court Minnesota v. Lane, 247 U.S. 243 (1918) Minnesota v. Lane No. 20, Original Motion to dismiss Argued April 15, 1918 Decided June 3, 1818 247 U.S. 243 I N EQUITY Syllabus An act of Congress granted the "undisposed of" lands in certain sections to a state, saving "vested rights" of others existing at its date. Part of the described tracts, here in question, within the indemnity limits of the Northern Pacific had previously been selected by that railroad and by it sold to purchasers in good faith. After the date of the act, the selections were cancelled as being founded on improper bases, but the Land Department, upon fully hearing the state, allowed an application of the purchasers' assignee, made meanwhile, to purchase the land in question from the United States, and secure patents therefor, under the Adjustment Act of March 3, 1887. Held that the decision was not arbitrary, and that a suit against the Secretary of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Doddridge v. Thompson - 22 U.S. 469 (1822) U.S. Supreme Court Doddridge v. Thompson, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 469 469 (1822) Doddridge v. Thompson 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 469 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF OHIO Syllabus Under the reserve contained in the cession act of Virginia and under the Acts of Congress of August 10, 1790, ch. 67, and of June 9, 1794, ch. 238, the whole country, lying between the Scioto and Little Miami Rivers, was subjected to the military warrants, to satisfy which the reserve was made. The territory lying between two rivers is the whole country from their sources to their mouths, and if no branch of either of them has acquired the name, exclusive of another, the main branch, torts source, roust be considered as the true river. The Act of June 26, 1812, ch. 432, to ascertain the western boundary of the tract reserved for the military warrants, and which provisionally designate Ludlow's Line as the western boundary, did not invalidate the title to land between that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Stephens v. McCargo - 22 U.S. 502 (1822) U.S. Supreme Court Stephens v. McCargo, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 502 502 (1822) Stephens v. McCargo 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 502 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY Syllabus The Land Law of Virginia of 1779 makes a preemption warrant superior to a Treasury warrant whenever they interfere with each other, unless the holder of the preemption warrant has forfeited that superiority by failing to enter his warrant with the surveyor of the county within twelve months after the end of the session at which the land law was enacted, and on that period's having expired, and being prolonged by successive acts, during which time there was one interval between the expiration of the law and the act of revival, the original right of the holder of the preemption warrant was preserved notwithstanding that interval, the entry of the holder of the Treasury warrant not having been made during the same interval. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Green v. Biddle - 21 U.S. 1 (1823) U.S. Supreme Court Green v. Biddle, 21 U.S. 8 Wheat. 1 1 (1823) Green v. Biddle 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 1 ON DIVISION OF OPINION AMONG THE JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF KENTUCKY Syllabus The Act of the State of Kentucky of 27 February, 1797, concerning occupying claimants of land, whilst it was in force, was repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, but it was repealed by a subsequent Act of 31 January, 1812, to amend the said act, and the last mentioned act is also repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, as being in violation of the compact between the States of Virginia and Kentucky contained in the Act of the Legislature of Virginia of 18 December, 1789, and incorporated into the Constitution of Kentucky. By the common law, the statute law of Virginia, the principles of equity, and the civil law, the claimant of lands who succeeds in his suit is entitled to an account of mesne profits, received by the occupant from some ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Kirk v. Smith ex dem. Penn - 22 U.S. 241 (1823) U.S. Supreme Court Kirk v. Smith ex dem. Penn, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 241 241 (1823) Kirk v. Smith ex dem. Penn 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 241 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus The act of Pennsylvania of 1779 "for vesting the estates of the late proprietaries of Pennsylvania in this commonwealth" did not confiscate lands of the proprietaries which were within the lines of manors, nor were the same confiscated by the act of 1751 for establishing a land office. The statute of limitations of Pennsylvania of 1705 is inapplicable to an action of ejectment brought to enforce the unpaid purchase money for lands of the proprietaries within the manors for which warrants had issued. Nor is the statute of limitations of 1785 a bar to such an action. This was an ejectment brought by the defendant in error in the court below to recover the possession of certain lands in York County in the State of Pennsylvania. On 4 March, 1681, Charle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Gibbons v. Ogden - 22 U.S. 1 (1824) U.S. Supreme Court Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 1 1 (1824) Gibbons v. Ogden 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 APPEAL FROM THE COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF IMPEACHMENTS AND CORRECTION OF ERRORS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Syllabus The laws of New York granting to Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton the exclusive right of navigating the waters of that State with steamboats are in collision with the acts of Congress regulating the coasting trade, which, being made in pursuance of the Constitution, are supreme, and the State laws must yield to that supremacy, even though enacted in pursuance of powers acknowledged to remain in the States. The power of regulating commerce extends to the regulation of navigation. The power to regulate commerce extends to every species of commercial intercourse between the United States and foreign nations, and among the several States. It does not stop at the external boundary of a State. But it does not extend to a commerc...
Tag this Judgment!