Court : US Supreme Court
abbott v. the essex companies - 59 u.s. 202 (1855) u.s. supreme court abbott v. the essex companies, 59 u.s. 18 how. 202 202 (1855) abbott v. the essex companies 59 u.s. (18 how.) 202 error to the circuit court of the united states for the district of massachusetts syllabus the following clause in a will, namely: "i give to my two sons, viz., john and jacob, all my lands &c.;, livestock &c.;, tools &c.;, bonds &c.;, to be equally divided between them, and the executor is ordered to pay debts out of that part of the estate." "item. it is my will that if either of my said sons, john and jacob, should happen to die without any lawful heirs of their own, then the share of him who may first decease shall accrue to the other survivor and his heirs," gave an estate in fee simple to john and jacob, and the share of the one who first died without issue passed over to the other son by way of executory devise. page 59 u. s. 203 the part of the will which gave rise to the question is stated in the opinion of the court. it was admitted by the parties that said testator died in the year 1775; that his will was duly proved august 5, 1776; that his two sons, john kittredge and jacob kittredge, survived him; that said john kittredge died in the year 1826, never having been married; that said jacob kittredge died in the lifetime of his brother john, on july 15, 1807, leaving the following children, namely: john kittredge, his oldest child, who died, without ever having had issue, on the 10th .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
murray's lessee v. hoboken land & improvement co. - 59 u.s. 272 (1856) u.s. supreme court murray's lessee v. hoboken land & improvement co., 59 u.s. 18 how. 272 272 (1856) murray's lessee v. hoboken land & improvement co. 59 u.s. (18 how.) 272 syllabus a distress warrant, issued by the solicitor of the treasury under the act of congress passed on the 15th may, 1820 (3 stats. at large 592) is not inconsistent with the constitution of the united states. it was an exercise of executive, and not of judicial, power, according to the meaning of those words in the constitution, and the privilege allowed to a collector to bring the question of his indebtedness before the courts of the united states, is merely the consent of congress to the suit, which is given in other classes of cases also. neither is it inconsistent with that part of the constitution which prohibits a citizen from being deprived of his liberty or property without due process of law. the historical and critical meaning of these words examined. by the common law of england and the laws of many of the colonies before the revolution, and of states before the formation of the federal constitution, a summary process existed for the recovery of the debts due to the government. it does not necessarily follow that the adjustment of these balances is a controversy to which the united states is a party within the meaning of the constitution. under the power of congress to collect taxes and the exercise of that power by the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
propeller niagara v. cordes - 62 u.s. 7 (1858) u.s. supreme court propeller niagara v. cordes, 62 u.s. 21 how. 7 7 (1858) propeller niagara v. cordes 62 u.s. (21 how.) 7 appeals from the district court of the united states for the district of wisconsin syllabus where a general ship, employed in navigating the lakes, receives goods under a contract of shipment corresponding in terms to the usual bill of lading for the transportation of goods on inland navigable waters, her liability must be determined by the rules of law applicable to carriers of goods upon such inland waters. a common carrier by water, as on land, is responsible for every loss or damage, however occasioned, unless it happened by the act of god or the public enemy, page 62 u. s. 8 or by some other cause or accident, without any fault or negligence on the part of the carrier, and expressly excepted in the bill of lading. amongst the duties imposed upon carriers by water, one is to see that the vessel is provided with a competent and skillful master. the act of congress, passed on the 3d of march, 1851, 9 stat. 635, limiting the liability of ship owners, does not apply to the present case. after a vessel is stranded, there is still an obligation upon the master to take all possible care of the cargo. his duties in that respect are not varied by that event, and proof merely of reasonable care and diligence will not excuse him from liability. where a vessel put into presque isle at night, in a storm, upon lake .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... ; under the reign of the son of charles, the prince of asturias, his successor in spain and the indies, "the inquisition received a still heavier shock, and before the late revolution it had become a mere tribunal of police, to arrest the progress of political, rather than of religious, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
minnesota company v. st. paul company - 69 u.s. 609 (1864) u.s. supreme court minnesota company v. st. paul company, 69 u.s. 2 wall. 609 609 (1864) minnesota company v. st. paul company 69 u.s. (2 wall.) 609 error to the circuit court of the district of wisconsin syllabus 1. where a bill in equity is necessary to have a construction of the orders, decrees, and acts made or done by a federal court, the bill is properly filed in such federal court as distinguished from any state court, and it may be entertained in such federal court even though parties who are interested in having the construction made would not, from want of proper citizenship, be entitled to proceed by original bill of any kind in a court of the united states. in such a case, the question will not be whether the bill filed is supplemental or original in the technical sense of equity pleading, but whether it is to be considered as supplemental or entirely new and original, in that sense which the supreme court has sanctioned with reference to the line that divides jurisdiction of the federal courts from that of the state courts. 2. a railroad company, owning the whole of a long railroad, and all the rolling stock upon it, may assign particular portions of such rolling stock to particular divisions -- certain cars, for example, to one division, the residue of the rolling stock to another -- and mortgage such portions with such divisions so as to attend them. whether the company have so mortgaged their rolling .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
bronson v. la cross & milwaukee railroad co. - 69 u.s. 283 (1864) u.s. supreme court bronson v. la cross & milwaukee railroad co., 69 u.s. 2 wall. 283 283 (1864) bronson v. la cross & milwaukee railroad co.{|69 u.s. 283fn1|1} 69 u.s. (2 wall.) 283 error to the circuit court for the district of wisconsin syllabus 1. stockholders of a corporation who have been allowed to put in answers in the name of a corporation cannot be regarded as answering for the corporation itself. in a special case, however, where there is an allegation that the directors fraudulently refused to attend to the interests of the corporation, a court of equity will, in its discretion, allow a stockholder to become a party defendant for the purpose of protecting from unfounded and illegal claims against the company -- his own interest and the interest of such other stockholders as choose to join him in the defense. 2. the filing of a cross-bill on a petition without the leave of the court is an irregularity, and such cross-bill may be properly set aside. 3. judgments recovered against a corporation in wisconsin after the date of a mortgage by it are discharged by a foreclosure of the mortgage. 4. until the filing of his bill of foreclosure and the appointment of a receiver, a mortgagee has no concern or responsibility for or in the dealings of a mortgagor with third parties, such as confessing judgment and leasing its property subject to the terms of the mortgage. 5. where a mortgage is made in express .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
lowber v. bangs - 69 u.s. 728 (1864) u.s. supreme court lowber v. bangs, 69 u.s. 2 wall. 728 728 (1864) lowber v. bangs 69 u.s. (2 wall.) 728 error to the circuit court of massachusetts syllabus a stipulation in a charter party that the chartered vessel, then in distant seas, would proceed from one port named (where it was expected that she would be) to another port named (where the charterer meant to load her), "with all possible dispatch," is a warranty that she will so proceed, and goes to the root of the contract. it is not a representation simply that she will so proceed, but a condition precedent to a right of recovery. accordingly, if a vessel go to a port out of the direct course, the charterer may throw up the charter party. ex gr., a vessel, while on a voyage to melbourne, was chartered at boston for a voyage from calcutta to a port in the united states. the charter party contained a clause that the vessel was to "proceed from melbourne to calcutta with all possible dispatch." before the master was advised of this engagement, the vessel bad sailed from melbourne to manila, which is out of the direct course between melbourne and calcutta, and did not arrive at calcutta either directly or as soon as the parties had contemplated. the defendants refused to load, and upon suit to recover damages for a breach of the charter party, it was held that the charterers might rightly claim to be discharged. bangs & son being owners of the ship mary bangs, then at sea, on her .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... on the other side, the counsel of the defendant, blackburn, then offered in evidence a transcript of the record in the orphans' court of prince george's county, maryland, of the proceedings instituted in that court, touching the grant of administration upon the estate of dr. ..... the third matter is as to the transcript of the record in the orphans' court of prince george's county, maryland. ..... the orphans' court of prince george's county, to which a decision of the question belonged, referred it to a jury to decide. ..... the proceedings in the orphans' court of prince george's county. ..... bowie to describe the children, in this will, as his natural children by elizabeth taylor, and in consequence of this express direction the children were so described in the will, which was on record in the proper office in prince george's county. ..... crawford, of prince george's county, maryland, died intestate in december, 1859, the proprietor of large landed estates there; greenwood park, waring's grove, federal hill westphalia, ranleigh &c. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... prince, 4 hill 19; calkens v. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
croxall v. shererd - 72 u.s. 268 (1866) u.s. supreme court croxall v. shererd, 72 u.s. 5 wall. 268 268 (1866) croxall v. shererd 72 u.s. (5 wall.) 268 error to the circuit court of the united states for the district of new jersey syllabus 1. as a general thing, any legal conveyance will have the same effect upon an equitable estate that it would have upon the like estate at law, and whatever is true at law of the latter is true in equity of the former. the rule in shelley's case applies alike to equitable and to legal estates, and an equitable estate tail may be barred in the same manner as an estate tail at law. 2. a use limited upon a use is not affected by the statute of uses. the statute executes but the first use. in the conveyance by deed of bargain and page 72 u. s. 269 sale, the whole force of the statute is exhausted in transferring the legal title in fee simple to the bargainee, and the second use remains as a trust. 3. a private act of the legislature of new jersey (passed in 1818) by which an estate meant to be settled in apparently some sort of tail, but over the deed settling which (executed in 1793) doubts and difficulties of law hung, making the rights of the several parties uncertain, the object of which private act was to dock the entail, unfetter the estate, and divide it equally between children in fee, was held to be a proper exercise of the legislative power to effect an assurance of title through a private statute, and valid, all parties in interest in .....
Tag this Judgment!