Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-23-1915
Bosley v. McLaughlin - 236 U.S. 385 (1915) U.S. Supreme Court Bosley v. McLaughlin, 236 U.S. 385 (1915) Bosley v. McLaughlin Nos. 362 and 363 Argued January 12, 1915 Decided February 23, 1915 236 U.S. 385 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus The nature of the work of pharmacists and student nurses in hospitals and the importance to the public that it should not be performed by those overfatigued, make it a proper subject for legislative control as to hours of labor of women so employed. Whether there is necessity for limiting the hours of labor of women pharmacists and nurses in hospitals is a matter for legislative, and not judicial, control, and the legislature is not prevented by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from limiting such labor to eight hours a day or a maximum of forty-eight hours a week. Such a restriction is not so palpably arbitrary as to be an unconstitutional invasion of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-23-1915
Joplin Mercantile Co. v. United States - 236 U.S. 531 (1915) U.S. Supreme Court Joplin Mercantile Co. v. United States, 236 U.S. 531 (1915) Joplin Mercantile Co. v. United States No. 648 Argued January 11, 1915 Decided February 23, 1915 236 U.S. 531 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus A mere conspiracy, without overt acts done to effect its object, is not indictable under 37, Judicial Code, and where the averment respecting the formation of the conspiracy refers to no other clause of the indictment for certainty, it must be interpreted as it stands, and, in the absence of a distinct averment that the conspiracy was formed to introduce liquors into Indian country within Oklahoma from without the state, the indictment must be construed as relating only to intrastate transactions; it cannot be construed as including interstate transactions because of other averments as to the overt acts of some of the conspirators. Where concurrent stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-15-1915
Wilson Cypress Co. v. Del Pozo y Marcos - 236 U.S. 635 (1915) U.S. Supreme Court Wilson Cypress Co. v. Del Pozo y Marcos, 236 U.S. 635 (1915) Wilson Cypress Company v. Del Pozo y Marcos No. 135 Argued January 19, 1915 Decided March 15, 1915 236 U.S. 635 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Although the jurisdiction of the federal court may have been invoked solely on account of diverse citizenship, if the object of the suit is to quiet title to a grant of the former sovereign, depending for its completeness on a treaty and on laws of the United States and acts of federal officers thereunder, this Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment of the circuit court of appeals. Although the amount of land patented to the grantee of a former sovereign may have exceeded the amount confirmed by the act of Page 236 U. S. 636 Congress and have been predicated upon a survey and limitation to the amount confirmed, the patentee has a taxable intere...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-05-1915
Henkel v. United States - 237 U.S. 43 (1915) U.S. Supreme Court Henkel v. United States, 237 U.S. 43 (1915) Henkel v. United States No. 142 Argued January 20, 21, 1915 Decided April 5, 1915 237 U.S. 43 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus There is no question of the authority of the United States to devote the Indian lands involved in this action to irrigation purposes. Under the provisions of the Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902, the Secretary of the Interior had power to acquire all rights and property necessary therefor, including those of allottee Indians, by paying for their improvements and giving them the right of selecting other lands. The restrictions on alienation of lands allotted to Indians within the area of the Milk River Irrigation Project did not extend to prohibiting an allottee Indian from selling his improvements to the United States and selecting other lands so that the United States could use the lands selected for purp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-05-1915
United States v. Noble - 237 U.S. 74 (1915) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Noble, 237 U.S. 74 (1915) United States v. Noble No. 127 Argued March l, 2, 1915 Decided April 5, 1915 237 U.S. 74 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The Quapaw Indians are still under National tutelage; the guardianship of the United States continues notwithstanding the citizenship conferred upon allottees. Where Congress has imposed restrictions upon alienation of an allotment, the United States has capacity to sue for the purpose of setting aside conveyances or contracts transferring such restrictions. Restrictions under the Act of March 2, 1895, being for a specified period, were absolute, and bound the land for that period, whether in the hands of the allottee or his heirs, except as to leasing it for the specified terms permitted by the Act of June 10, 1896, or by the supplemental Act of June 7, 1897; neither of those acts gave the allottee or his he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-15-1915
Reported in : 30Ind.Cas.544
1. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the appellants' petition to set aside the decree of the Small Cause suit, because appellants having been called on to deposit money and the time granted for doing so having been extended until 3rd December 1912, no deposit was made before the petition was taken up for orders on that date. Dakins v. Wagner 3 Dow. and R. (1791) 4 Bro. C.C. 358; Isaacs v. Royal Insurance Co. (1870) 39 L.J. Ex. 189. are authorities for holding that, when time is given for the performance of any act till a certain date, it includes that date. The learned Subordinate Judge, therefore, had no jurisdiction to pass his order of dismissal before 4th December 1912. We must allow the Letters Patent Appeal and set aside the Subordinate Judge's order dismissing the petition before him; costs to abide the result of the Small Cause suit....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-01-1915
G. & C. Merriam Co. v. Syndicate Publishing Co. - 237 U.S. 618 (1915) U.S. Supreme Court G. & C. Merriam Co. v. Syndicate Publishing Co., 237 U.S. 618 (1915) G. & C. Merriam Co. v. Syndicate Publishing Company No. 217 Argued April 14, 1915 Decided June 1, 1915 237 U.S. 618 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus In a case where diverse citizenship exists, the decree of the circuit court of appeals is final unless, in addition to the allegations of diverse citizenship, the bill contains averments of a cause of action, and consequent basis of jurisdiction, arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. If the jurisdiction of the district court was invoked on the ground of diversity of citizenship, and averments as to a federal right are unsustainable and frivolous, or foreclosed by former adjudication of this Court, the appeal from the judgment of the circuit court of appeals must be dismissed. Where the jurisdiction below rest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-01-1915
Bothwell v. Bingham County - 237 U.S. 642 (1915) U.S. Supreme Court Bothwell v. Bingham County, 237 U.S. 642 (1915) Bothwell v. Bingham County No. 266 Argued May 6, 1915 Decided June 1, 1915 237 U.S. 642 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Syllabus The determinative fact of whether property formerly part of the public domain of the United States is subject to taxation by the state is the absence of any beneficial interest in the land on the part of the United States at the time of the assessment. Neither the Carey Act of August 18, 1894, nor the agreement thereunder with the State of Idaho in regard to irrigation of arid lands segregated from the public domain purports to exempt the lands from taxation or take them out of the settled rule respecting taxation by the lands acquired under public land laws. Where proceedings to acquire title to public land have reached the point where nothing remains to be done by the entryman, and the United States has no benefi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-01-1915
Sawyer v. Gray - 237 U.S. 674 (1915) U.S. Supreme Court Sawyer v. Gray, 237 U.S. 674 (1915) Sawyer v. Gray No. 632 Argued April 22, 1915 Decided June 1, 1915 237 U.S. 674 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Daniels v. Wagner, ante, p. 237 U. S. 547 , followed to the effect that the Secretary of the Interior has no discretionary power to refuse to allow land properly selected for exchange under the Forest Lieu Land Act of June 4, 1897, to be patented to an applicant who has complied with all statutory requirements in regard to such exchange. The facts, which involve the construction of the Forest Lieu Lands Act of 1897 and the extent of discretionary power on the Secretary of the Interior to reject applications for exchange of lands thereunder, are stated in the opinion. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. This case is controlled by Daniels v. Wagner, No. 239, ante, p. 237 U. S. 547 , recently decided. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-14-1915
Geneva Furniture Mfg. Co. v. S. Karpen & Bros. - 238 U.S. 254 (1915) U.S. Supreme Court Geneva Furniture Mfg. Co. v. S. Karpen & Bros., 238 U.S. 254 (1915) Geneva Furniture Manufacturing Company v. S. Karpen & Bros. No. 496 Submitted December 17, 1914 Decided June 14, 1915 238 U.S. 254 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus Where the plaintiff really makes a substantial claim under an Act of Congress, the district court has jurisdiction whether the claim ultimately be held good or bad. The Fair v. Kohler Die Co., 228 U. S. 22 . Jurisdiction is the power to consider and decide one way or the other as the law may require; it is not to be declined because it is not foreseen with certainty that the party invoking it may succeed. Where a bill includes several causes of action, some arising under the patent laws and others on breach of contractual relations, and one of the defendants is a corporation that cannot be ...
Tag this Judgment!