Court : US Supreme Court
Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson City - 141 U.S. 679 (1891) U.S. Supreme Court Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson City, 141 U.S. 679 (1891) Henderson Bridge Company v. Henderson City No. 1007 Submitted November 23, 1891 Decided December 7, 1891 141 U.S. 679 ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KENTUCKY Syllabus In a suit brought in a state court of Kentucky by the City of Henderson against the Henderson Bridge Company to recover for taxes assessed by the city on the bridge of the company, which spanned the Ohio River at the city, the Court of Appeals of the state held that the city, as a taxing district, could tax the property of the company, and that, under an ordinance of the city, accepted by the company, the city acquired a contract right to tax the bridge to low water mark on the Indiana shore, it being within the city limits, in consideration of rights and privileges granted to the company by the ordinance. On a motion to dismiss a writ of error from this Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
People ex Rel. Schurz v. Cook - 148 U.S. 397 (1893) U.S. Supreme Court People ex Rel. Schurz v. Cook, 148 U.S. 397 (1893) People ex Rel. Schurz v. Cook No. 139 Argued March 15, 1893 Decided April 3, 1893 148 U.S. 397 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Syllabus The authority conferred by the Act of the Legislature of New York of May 11, 1874, c. 430, p. 547, as amended by the Act of June 2, 1876, c. 446, p. 480, upon purchasers at a foreclosure sale of a railroad, to organize a corporation to receive and hold the purchased property creates no contract with the state. The imposition, under the provisions of the Act of the Legislature of New York of April 16, 1886, c. 143, of a tax upon a corporation so organized after the passage of that act by purchasers who purchased at a foreclosure sale made before its passage for the privilege of becoming a corporation violates no contract of the state, and is no violation of the Constitution of the United States. This...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Carey v. Houston & Texas Central Ry. Co. - 150 U.S. 170 (1893) U.S. Supreme Court Carey v. Houston & Texas Central Ry. Co., 150 U.S. 170 (1893) Carey v. Houston and Texas Central Railway Company No. 912 Submitted October 23, 1893 Decided November 13, 1893 150 U.S. 170 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Syllabus Oral argument is not allowed on motions to dismiss appeals or writs of error. On motion to dismiss or affirm, it is only necessary to print so much of the record as will enable the court to act understandingly without referring to the transcript. Page 150 U. S. 171 In order to bring an appeal from the judgment of a circuit court taken since the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 826, c. 517, went into effect, within the first of the six classes of cases specified in 5, of that act, viz., "in any case in which the jurisdiction of the court is in issue," the jurisdiction of the circuit court below must have ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Johnson - 151 U.S. 81 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 151 U.S. 81 (1894) Texas and Pacific Railway Company v. Johnson No. 138 Argued December 15, 1893 Decided January 3, 1894 151 U.S. 81 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS Syllabus A circuit court of the United States having appointed a receiver of a railroad in 1885, and the receiver having, during his possession of the property, used a very large amount of the net earnings in improving it, whereby it had been made much more valuable, the court, on the expiration of the receivership, ordered, on the 26th October, 1888, the receiver to transfer Page 151 U. S. 82 the property with its improvements to the company, and that it should be received by the company, charged with operation liabilities and subject to judgments rendered or to be rendered in favor of intervenors, and that all claims against the receiver up to October 31, 1888, be presented and pros...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Michigan v. Flint and La Pere Marquette R. Co. - 152 U.S. 363 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court Michigan v. Flint and La Pere Marquette R. Co., 152 U.S. 363 (1894) Michigan v. Flint and La Pere Marquette Railroad Company No. 913 Submitted January 29, 1894 Decided March 12, 1894 152 U.S. 363 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Syllabus The decision of the highest court of a state in a suit brought by the state to establish its title to lands within the state claimed and occupied by a railroad company that the state was estopped by its acts, conduct, silence, and acquiescence from setting up such claim presents no federal question for revision by this court. Motion to dismiss. This was a bill or information filed on behalf of the State of Michigan in the Ingham Circuit Court, December 13, 1887, against the Flint and Pere Marquette Railroad Company and others, claiming title to certain lands under and by virtue of the grant by Act of Congress of September 28, 1850, co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Pendleton - 156 U.S. 667 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Pendleton, 156 U.S. 667 (1895) Norfolk and Western Railroad Company v. Pendleton Nos. 153, 359 Submitted January 14, 1895 Decided March 4, 1895 156 U.S. 667 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA Syllabus The fifth section of the charter from the Virginia to the Atlantic, Mississippi and Ohio Railroad Company, which vested it "with all the rights and privileges conferred by the laws of this Commonwealth," and Page 156 U. S. 668 subject to such as apply to railroad corporations generally, subjected it to state laws regulating rates, notwithstanding provisions of exemption in statutes organizing other previous companies to whose rights it succeeded, and the Norfolk and Western Railroad Company, when it became possessed of the property and rights of the Atlantic, Mississippi and Ohio Railroad Company, took them subject in like manner to such laws...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Simmons v. Burlington, C.R. and N. Ry. Co. - 159 U.S. 278 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court Simmons v. Burlington, C.R. and N. Ry. Co., 159 U.S. 278 (1895) Simmons v. Burlington, Cedar Rapids, and Northern Railway Company Nos. 11 and 12 Argued November 1, 1894 Decided October 21, 1895 159 U.S. 278 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA When a junior mortgagee is a party defendant to a foreclosure bill in which there is a prayer that he be decreed to redeem, and when the priority of the plaintiffs mortgage is found or conceded, and a sale is ordered in default of payment, declaring the right of the debtor to redeem to be forever barred, a similar order as to right of redemption by the junior mortgagee is not substantially, or even formally, necessary. In such case, a junior mortgagee, who stands by while the sale is made and confirmed, must be deemed, in equity, to have waived his right to redeem. A decree in such a suit that the sale is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Carey v. Houston & Texas Central Ry. Co. - 161 U.S. 115 (1896) U.S. Supreme Court Carey v. Houston & Texas Central Ry. Co., 161 U.S. 115 (1896) Carey v. Houston and Texas Central Railway Company No. 642 Submitted December 23, 1895 Decided March 2, 1896 161 U.S. 115 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus A bill in equity by a corporation, or by the stockholders of a corporation, in a circuit court of the United States to set aside a final decree of that court against the corporation in a foreclosure suit upon the ground that the decree was obtained by collusion and fraud and that the court had Page 161 U. S. 116 no jurisdiction to make it is an ancillary suit and a continuation of the main suit so far as the jurisdiction of the circuit court as a court of the United States is concerned. As the jurisdiction of the circuit court of the United States was invoked throughout this litigation upon the ground of diverse citizenship, and as this bi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Mercantile Bank v. Tennessee - 161 U.S. 161 (1896) U.S. Supreme Court Mercantile Bank v. Tennessee, 161 U.S. 161 (1896) Mercantile Bank v. Tennessee No. 676 Argued January 20-22, 1896 Decided March 2, 1896 161 U.S. 161 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE Syllabus A judicial sale and conveyance, made under order of court, of the franchises of a corporation whose taxation is limited by the act of the legislature of the state incorporating it to a rate therein named, carries to the purchaser Page 161 U. S. 162 (if anything) only the franchise to be a corporation; and a corporation organized to receive and receiving conveyance of such franchises, is not the same corporation as the original corporation, and is liable to taxation according to the constitution and laws of the state in force at the time of the sale, or which may be subsequently adopted or enacted, and is not entitled to the limitation and exemption contained in the original act of incorporation. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Pearsall v. Great Northern Ry. Co. - 161 U.S. 646 (1896) U.S. Supreme Court Pearsall v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 161 U.S. 646 (1896) Pearsall v. Great Northern Railway Company No. 768 Submitted December 16, 1895 Decided March 30, 1896 161 U.S. 646 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Syllabus In 1856, the Minneapolis and St. Cloud Railroad Company was incorporated by the Legislature of the Territory of Minnesota, with authority to construct a railroad on an indicated route, and to connect its road by branches with any other road in the territory, or to become part owner or lessee of any railroad in said territory; and also "to connect with any railroad running in the same direction with this road, and where there may be any portion of another road which may be used by this company." By a subsequent act it was, in 1865, authorized "to connect with or adopt as its own any other railroad running in the same general direction with e...
Tag this Judgment!