Court : US Supreme Court
Grand Rapids & Indiana Ry. Co. v. Osborn - 193 U.S. 17 (1904) U.S. Supreme Court Grand Rapids & Indiana Ry. Co. v. Osborn, 193 U.S. 17 (1904) Grand Rapids & Indiana Railway Company v. Osborn No. 61 Argued November 6, 1803 Decided February 23, 1904 193 U.S. 17 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Syllabus Where the determination by the state court of an alleged ground of estoppel embodied in the ground of demurrer to an answer necessarily involves a consideration of the claim set up in the answer of a contract protected by the Constitution of the United States, a federal question arises on the record which gives this Court jurisdiction. Provisions in the railway law of Michigan of 1873, for the creation of a new corporation upon the reorganization of a railroad by the purchaser at a foreclosure sale did not constitute a contract within the impairment clause of the Constitution of the United States. New York v. Cook, 148 U. S. 397 . Purchasers of a railroa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Iron Cliffs Co. v. Negaunee Iron Co. - 197 U.S. 463 (1905) U.S. Supreme Court Iron Cliffs Co. v. Negaunee Iron Co., 197 U.S. 463 (1905) Iron Cliffs Company v. Negaunee Iron Company No. 173 Argued March 9-10, 1905 Decided April 3, 1905 197 U.S. 463 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Syllabus No person can be deprived of property rights by any decree in a case wherein he is not a party. Where a corporation is not itself made a party to the suit, complainant alleging that its corporate existence had ended, its rights cannot be adjudged even though certain persons are made defendants on the ground that they are using the name of the corporation as a cover for their alleged wrongful acts and they answer, denying any personal interest, and claiming that the corporation is a going concern, and justify their acts as its agent, and a decree of a state court in such an action cannot be reviewed in this Court at the instance of one of such defendants on the ground th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Union Pacific R. Co. v. Mason City & Ft. D. R. Co. - 199 U.S. 160 (1905) U.S. Supreme Court Union Pacific R. Co. v. Mason City & Ft. D. R. Co., 199 U.S. 160 (1905) Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Mason City and Fort Dodge Railroad Company No. 18 Argued October 1 and 20, 1905 Decided November 6, 1905 199 U.S. 160 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus A distinct ruling on any question fairly arising in a trial is not obiter dictum, and where the judgment rests upon two grounds, either being sufficient to sustain it, and the appellate court sustains it on both grounds, the ruling on neither is obiter, but each is the ruling of the court, and of equal validity with the other. In construing an act of Congress granting permission to construct a bridge across a navigable river, the general policy of the government to provide for the use of such a bridge, up to its reasonable capacity, by all connecting railroads on reasonable compensation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1906)ILR33Cal219
Arthur Wilson, J.1. The first of these appeals arises out of a suit institute in the Court of the Assistant Political Agent of Sorath Prant in Kathiawar (the term Prant meaning an administrative district). The grounds of the plaintiff's claim, so far as it has now to be noticed, were that in February 1893 he had advanced money to the late Darbar Shri Vala Naja Mamaiya, a shareholder in the Chief ship or Talukdari of Jetpur Chital in Kalhiawar, for the purpose of paying off debts due by the latter, who was a talukdar of the 6th class, and that the plaintiff had acquired possession; that Vala Naja died in May 1901; and that the plaintiff's rights as mortgagee had been interfered with or threatened by the nominal defendant as Manager for the substantial defendants, the successors of the deceased Chief. The plaintiff prayed for a declaration of his rights and an injunction. In effect therefore the suit was one to enforce a mortgage made by a deceased Chief against his successors. The Assis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1906)8BOMLR129
Arthuh Wilson, J.1. The first of these appeals arises out of a suit instituted in the Court of the Assistant Political Agent of Sorath Prant in Kathiawar (the term Prant meaning an administrative district). The grounds of the plaintiff's claim, so far as it has now to be noticed, were that in February 1893 he had advanced money to the late Darbar Shri Vala Naja Manaiya, a shareholder in the Chief ship or Talukdari of Jetpur Chital in Kathiawar, for the purpose of paying off debts due by the latter, who was a talukdar of the sixth class, and that the plaintiff had acquired possession ; that Vala Naja died in May 1901; and that the plaintiff's rights as mortgagee had been interfered with or threatened by the nominal defendant as manager for the substantial defendants, the successors of the deceased Chief. The plaintiff prayed for a declaration of his rights and an injunction. In effect therefore the suit was one to enforce a mortgage made by a deceased Chief against his successors. The A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Powers v. Detroit, G.H. & M. Ry. Co. - 201 U.S. 543 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court Powers v. Detroit, G.H. & M. Ry. Co., 201 U.S. 543 (1906) Powers v. Detroit, Grand Haven and Milwaukee Railway Company No. 394 Argued February 26, 1906 Decided April 16, 1906 201 U.S. 543 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN Syllabus Where a railroad company is reorganized under a special act of the legislature but no new corporation is chartered, a statutory exemption from taxation is not destroyed. A state may, through its legislature, make a valid contract as to taxation with a corporation which the latter can enforce, and this Court is not, under the rule generally applicable as to the binding effect of decisions of the supreme court of the state construing its statutes, concluded by Page 201 U. S. 544 the decisions of that court as to whether such a contract exists, the extent of its terms, and whether any subsequent law has impaired its o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Commissioners of Wicomico County v. Bancroft - 203 U.S. 112 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court Commissioners of Wicomico County v. Bancroft, 203 U.S. 112 (1906) Commissioners of Wicomico County v. Bancroft No. 129 Argued October 1, 1906 Decided November 5, 1906 203 U.S. 112 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Syllabus In the absence of a contract protected by the impairment clause of the federal Constitution, whether a statutory exemption has been repealed by a subsequent statute is a question of state law in which the decisions of the highest court of the state are binding. It is only where an irrepealable contract exists that it is the duty of this Court to decide for itself irrespective of the decisions of the state court whether a subsequent act impairs the obligation of such contract. Even though federal courts might exercise independent judgment, in this case the decisions of the Supreme Court of Maryland are followed to the effect that an act d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Virginia v. West Virginia - 206 U.S. 290 (1907) U.S. Supreme Court Virginia v. West Virginia, 206 U.S. 290 (1907) Virginia v. West Virginia No. 7. Original Argued March 11, 12, 1907 Decided May 27, 1907 206 U.S. 290 Syllabus This Court has original jurisdiction of a suit by the Virginia against the West Virginia for an accounting as between the two states, and, in order to a full and correct adjustment of the accounts to adjudicate and determine the amount, if any, due the former by the latter. Consent to be sued in this Court by another state is given by a state, by and at the time of its admission into the Union. It will be presumed that the legislature of a state will provide for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be rendered against it, and the jurisdiction and power of this Court is not affected by the question of how it will be enforced. If a state should repudiate its obligation to satisfy judgment rendered against it, this Court will, after the event, consider...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Polk v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n - 207 U.S. 310 (1907) U.S. Supreme Court Polk v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n, 207 U.S. 310 (1907) Polk v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association of New York No. 45 Argued November 11, 1907 Decided December 2, 1907 207 U.S. 310 CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Where there is a reserved power in the legislature to alter, amend, or repeal charters, a law permitting mutual life associations to reincorporate as regular life insurance companies is not unconstitutional as impairing the obligation of the contracts existing between such associations and their policyholders, or as depriving such policyholders of their property without due process of law. Wright v. Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Co., 193 U. S. 657 . The legislative power to alter, amend and repeal charters is equally effectual whether it be reserved in the original act of incorporation, the articles of association under a general...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. Co. v. Vicksburg - 209 U.S. 358 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. Co. v. Vicksburg, 209 U.S. 358 (1908) Yazoo and Mississippi Valley Railroad Company v. Vicksburg No. 97 Argued February 28, 1908 Decided April 6, 1908 209 U.S. 358 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI Syllabus A corporation formed by the consolidation of several existing corporations is subject to the constitution and laws existing at the time of the consolidation in the same manner as all other corporations formed under the organic law of the state, and where the formation of the consolidated corporation is not imposed upon it, the constitution and laws in force become the law of its corporate being, and if they prohibit the exemption of property of corporations from taxation, such an exemption existing in favor of one of the constituent companies cannot be transferred to the consolidated corporation, ...
Tag this Judgment!