Court : US Supreme Court
Calder v. Bull - 3 U.S. 386 (1798) U.S. Supreme Court Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 3 Dall. 386 386 (1798) Calder v. Bull 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 I N ERROR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT Syllabus A resolution or law of the State of Connecticut setting aside a decree of a court and granting a new trial to be had before the same court is not void under the Constitution as an ex post facto law. The Legislature of Connecticut, on the second Thursday of May, 1795, passed a resolution or law which set aside a decree of the Court of Probate for Hartford County made 21 March, 1793, disapproving a the will of N.M. and refusing to record the will. The act of the legislature authorized a new hearing of the case before the court of probate, and an appeal to the superior court. Afterwards the will of N.M. was confirmed by the court of probate and by the Superior Court at Hartford;, and on an appeal to the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut the judgment of the superior court was confirmed. Mor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Ogden v. Saunders - 25 U.S. 213 (1827) U.S. Supreme Court Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 12 Wheat. 213 213 (1827) Ogden v. Saunders 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 213 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Syllabus A bankrupt or insolvent law of any state which discharges both the person of the debtor and his future acquisitions of property is not "a law impairing the obligation of contracts" so far as respects debts contracted subsequent to the passage of such law in those cases where the contract was made between citizens of the state under whose laws the discharge was obtained and in whose courts the discharge may be pleaded. The power given to the United States by the Constitution, "to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States" is not exclusive of the right of the states to legislate on the same subject except when the power is actually in exercise by Congress and the laws of the state are in conflict with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Heirs of Emerson v. Hall - 38 U.S. 409 (1839) U.S. Supreme Court Heirs of Emerson v. Hall, 38 U.S. 13 Pet. 409 409 (1839) Heirs of Emerson v. Hall 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 409 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Syllabus The Josepha Secunda was condemned for a violation of the laws of the United States prohibiting the slave trade, and by a decree the Supreme Court of Louisiana allowed the claim of the collector, the surveyor, and naval officer, who had prosecuted for the forfeiture, to a portion of the proceeds of the sale of the property condemned. This decree was afterwards reversed, and the whole proceeds adjudged to the United States, on an appeal to the Supreme Court. William Emerson, the surveyor, afterwards died, and in 1831, Congress passed an act for the relief of the collector, the heirs of William Emerson, and the heirs of the naval officer, under the authority of which the sums which had been adjudged to those officers, and which had remained...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Holmes v. Jennison - 39 U.S. 540 (1840) U.S. Supreme Court Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. 14 Pet. 540 540 (1840) Holmes v. Jennison 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 540 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF THE STATE OF VERMONT Syllabus In the State of Vermont, George Holmes was confined under a warrant issued by the governor of that state directing the Sheriff of the County of Washington to convey and deliver him "to William Brown, the agent of Canada, or to such person or persons as by the laws of said province may be authorized to receive the same at some convenient place on the confines of this state and the said Province of Lower Canada to the end that he, the said George Holmes, may be thence conveyed to the said District of Quebec and be there dealt with as to law and justice appertains." The warrant stated that "George Holmes was in the custody of the sheriff" by reason of a charge of felony sustained by indictment found by the grand jurors of the District of Quebec, in the Prov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Passenger Cases - 48 U.S. 283 (1849) U.S. Supreme Court Passenger Cases, 48 U.S. 7 How. 283 283 (1849) Passenger Cases 48 U.S. (7 How.) 283 ERROR TO THE COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF IMPEACHMENTS AND CORRECTION OF ERRORS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus Statutes of the states of New York and Massachusetts, imposing taxes upon alien passengers arriving in the ports of those states declared to be contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States, and therefore null and void. Inasmuch as there was no opinion of the Court as a Court, the reporter refers the reader to the opinions of the judges for an explanation of the statutes and the points in which they conflicted with the Constitution and laws of the United States. These were kindred cases, and were argued together. They were both brought up to this Court by writs of error issued under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act, the case of Smith v. Turner being brought...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
The Kansas Indians - 72 U.S. 737 (1866) U.S. Supreme Court The Kansas Indians, 72 U.S. 5 Wall. 737 737 (1866) The Kansas Indians 72 U.S. (5 Wall.) 737 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS Syllabus 1. The State of Kansas has no right to tax lands held in severalty by individual Indians of the Shawnee, Miami, and Wea tribes, under patents issued to them by virtue of the treaties made with those tribes respectively in 1854 and in pursuance of the provisions of the 11th section of the Act of June 30, 1859, 11 Stat. at Large p. 431. 2. If the tribal organization of Indian bands is recognized by the political department of the national government as existing -- that is to say if the national government makes treaties with and has its Indian agent among them, paying annuities and dealing otherwise with "head men" in its behalf, the fact that the primitive habits and customs of the tribe when in a savage state have been largely broken into by their intercourse with the whites -- in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Ex parte Garland - 71 U.S. 333 (1866) U.S. Supreme Court Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 4 Wall. 333 333 (1866) Ex parte Garland 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333 Syllabus 1. The act of Congress of January 24th, 1865, providing that, after its passage, no person shall be admitted as an attorney and counselor to the bar of the Supreme Court, and, after March 4th, 1865, to the bar of any Circuit or District Court of the United States, or Court of Claims, or be allowed to appear and be heard by virtue of any previous admission, or any special power of attorney, unless he shall have first taken and subscribed to the oath prescribed in the act of July 2d, 1862 -- which latter act requires the affiant to swear or affirm that he has never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since he has been a citizen thereof, that he has voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto, that he has neither sought nor accepted, nor attempted to e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
License Tax Cases - 72 U.S. 462 (1866) U.S. Supreme Court License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 5 Wall. 462 462 (1866) License Tax Cases 72 U.S. (5 Wall.) 462 ON ERROR AND CERTIFICATES OF DIVISION FROM VARIOUS COURTS OF NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY, AND MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus 1. Licenses under the Act of June 30, 1864, "to provide internal revenue to support the government" &c.;, 13 Stat. at Large 223, and the amendatory acts, conveyed to the licensee no authority to carry on the licensed business within a state. 2. The requirement of payment for such licenses is only a mode of imposing taxes on the licensed business, and the prohibition, under penalties, against carrying on the business without license is only a mode of enforcing the payment of such taxes. 3. The provisions of the act of Congress requiring such licenses and imposing penalties for not taking out and paying for them are not contrary to the Constitution or to public policy. 4. The provisions in the Act of July 13, 1866, "to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Ward v. Maryland - 79 U.S. 418 (1870) U.S. Supreme Court Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 12 Wall. 418 418 (1870) Ward v. Maryland 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 418 ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND Syllabus A statute of Maryland required all traders resident within the state to take out licenses and to pay therefor certain sums regulated by a sliding scale of from $12 to $150, according as their stock in trade might vary from $1,000 to more than $40,000. The statute also made it a penal offense in any person not being a permanent resident in the state to sell, offer for sale, or expose for sale, within certain limits in the state, any goods, wares, or merchandise whatever, other than agricultural products and articles manufactured in Maryland within the said limits either by card, sample, or other specimen or by written or printed trade list or catalogue, whether such person be the maker or manufacturer thereof or not, without first obtaining a license so to do, for which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Stewart v. Kahn - 78 U.S. 493 (1870) U.S. Supreme Court Stewart v. Kahn, 78 U.S. 11 Wall. 493 493 (1870) Stewart v. Kahn 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 493 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA Syllabus 1. In writs of error under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which gives jurisdiction to this Court to review no error but such as appears on the face of the record &c.; -- where the writ is to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, the code of which state enacts that "When the defendant alleges on his part new facts, these shall be considered as denied by the plaintiff; therefore neither replication nor rejoinder shall be allowed," a question was held to appear sufficiently on the face of the record when the petition for review in the supreme court of the state set out that the question was raised in the court below and decided against, and when the supreme court, on the question being thus before it, decided the case in the same way. 2. The Act of June 11, 1864, "in relation...
Tag this Judgment!