Us Supreme Court Court January 1855 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
United States Vs. Fremont
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1855
United States v. Fremont - 59 U.S. 30 (1855) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Fremont, 59 U.S. 18 How. 30 30 (1855) United States v. Fremont 59 U.S. (18 How.) 30 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus Where the record is not filed by the appellant, within the time prescribed by the rules of this Court, and the appellee files a copy of it, the appeal will be dismissed upon his motion. Also, where a mandate went down from this Court to the district Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, and that court entered a decree according to the mandate, this furnishes no ground for an appeal, and the case will be dismissed upon that ground. As this case involved a principle somewhat novel, and especially an important point of practice, the reporter thinks it proper to insert the papers upon which the motion to dismiss the appeal was founded. "The appellee, J. C. Fremont, by his counsel, moves ...
Barnard Vs. Ashley
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1855
Barnard v. Ashley - 59 U.S. 43 (1855) U.S. Supreme Court Barnard v. Ashley, 59 U.S. 18 How. 43 43 (1855) Barnard v. Ashley 59 U.S. (18 How.) 43 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus The Act of congress passed on the 4th of July, 1836, 5 Stat. 107, provided for a direct supervision by the Commissioner of the General Land Office over registers and receivers of the land offices, and therefore their judgment is not conclusive in a case where additional proceedings were had before them in 1837. The cases of Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Pet. 511, and Lytle v. Arkansas, 9 How. 333, commented on and explained. Where a survey was approved on June 4, 1834, a selection made, under the authority of congress, by Governor Pope on June 6, 1834, the lands thus selected were not open to preemptions under the act of June 19, 1834. Where there was an erroneous survey, a selection of a section did not attach until a correct survey was re...
Smith Vs. Maryland
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1855
Smith v. Maryland - 59 U.S. 71 (1855) U.S. Supreme Court Smith v. Maryland, 59 U.S. 18 How. 71 71 (1855) Smith v. Maryland 59 U.S. (18 How.) 71 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND IN AND FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY Syllabus The soil below low water mark in the Chesapeake Bay, within the boundaries of Maryland, belongs to the state, subject to any lawful grants of that soil by the state or the sovereign power which governed its territory before the Declaration of Independence. But this soil is held by the state not only subject to, but in some sense in trust for, the enjoyment of certain public rights, among which is the common liberty of taking fish, as well shellfish as floating fish. The state has a right to protect this fishery by making it unlawful to take or catch oysters with a scoop or drag, and to inflict the penalty of forfeiture upon the vessel employed in this pursuit. Such a law is not repugnant to the Constitution of t...
Verden Vs. Coleman
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1855
Verden v. Coleman - 59 U.S. 86 (1855) U.S. Supreme Court Verden v. Coleman, 59 U.S. 18 How. 86 86 (1855) Verden v. Coleman 59 U.S. (18 How.) 86 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA Syllabus This Court again decides that a decree upon a motion to dissolve an injunction in the course of a chancery cause, and where the bill is not finally disposed of, is not such a final decree as can be reexamined in this Court under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act. The case is explained in the opinion of the Court. MR. JUSTICE CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the Court. The plaintiff filed his bill in the Circuit Court of Benton County, Indiana, sitting in chancery, to obtain a decree to cancel a mortgage and the mortgage note and also to restrain by injunction, the mortgagee from proceeding upon the power of sale contained in the mortgage until the final hearing, and from thence perpetually. A temporary injunction was granted in vacation upon the usual conditions, which was dissolv...
Curtis Vs. Petitpain
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1855
Curtis v. Petitpain - 59 U.S. 109 (1855) U.S. Supreme Court Curtis v. Petitpain, 59 U.S. 18 How. 109 109 (1855) Curtis v. Petitpain 59 U.S. (18 How.) 109 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Syllabus Where the record contains only an agreed statement of facts, it is not in conformity with the eleventh and thirty-first rules of this Court, and the case will be dismissed. Where different parties claimed a fund in the hands of the marshal which had arisen from sales under an execution, a judgment of the circuit court on rules as to whom the money should be paid is not such a judgment as can be reexamined in this Court. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court. Mr. Justice CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the Court. Page 59 U. S. 110 The record certified in this cause consists of "an agreed statement of facts," which the parties submitted to the court on the rules taken by the plaintiffs against the defendants and the ju...
Guild Vs. Frontin
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1855
Guild v. Frontin - 59 U.S. 135 (1855) U.S. Supreme Court Guild v. Frontin, 59 U.S. 18 How. 135 135 (1855) Guild v. Frontin 59 U.S. (18 How.) 135 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus Where a trial by jury is waived in the court below, and there is no special verdict or agreed statement of facts or bill of exception upon a point of law, this Court cannot review the judgment of the court below. But having jurisdiction of the cause, and no error appearing upon the face of the record, the judgment will be affirmed. The point of practice involved in it, is stated in the opinion of the court. MR. JUSTICE GRIER delivered the opinion of the Court. The record and proceedings in this case are in conformity with the practice of the state courts of California. It was tried without the intervention of a jury, and the testimony, together with the opinion of the court, filed of record. But there is no special verdict or agreed s...
Griffith Vs. Bogert
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1855
Griffith v. Bogert - 59 U.S. 158 (1855) U.S. Supreme Court Griffith v. Bogert, 59 U.S. 18 How. 158 158 (1855) Griffith v. Bogert 59 U.S. (18 How.) 158 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MISSOURI Syllabus The law of Missouri allows the lands of a deceased debtor to be sold under execution, but prohibits it from being done until after the expiration of eighteen months from the date of the letters of administration upon his estate. Where the letters of administration were dated on the 1st of November, 1819, and the sale took place on the 1st of May, 1821, the sale was valid. In this case the terminus a quo should be included. Moreover, the sale was ordered to take place on that day by a court of competent jurisdiction, and this makes the matter rem judicatam, and is evidence of the construction which the courts of Missouri place upon their laws. And besides, the question of the regularity of a judicial sale cannot be raised collaterally exc...
MclauglIn Vs. Swann
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1855
McLauglin v. Swann - 59 U.S. 217 (1855) U.S. Supreme Court McLauglin v. Swann, 59 U.S. 18 How. 217 217 (1855) McLauglin v. Swann * 59 U.S. (18 How.) 217 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Syllabus The attachment law of Maryland allows an attachment by way of execution to be issued upon a judgment and levied upon the credits inter alia of the defendant. Where an attachment of this nature was laid in the hands of garnishees who were trustees, and it appeared that, after performing the trust, there was a balance in their hands due to the defendant, the attachment will bind this balance. The defendant might have brought an action to recover it, and wherever he can do this, the fund is liable to be attached. A bill filed in the court of chancery by another creditor against the garnishees and the defendant, filed after the laying of the attachment, and the opinion and decree of the chancellor thereon, do not change the rights of the pla...
The Schooner Freeman Vs. Buckingham
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1855
The Schooner Freeman v. Buckingham - 59 U.S. 182 (1855) U.S. Supreme Court The Schooner Freeman v. Buckingham, 59 U.S. 182 (1855) The Schooner Freeman v. Buckingham 59 U.S. 182 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus Under the admiralty law of the United States, contracts of affreightment, entered into with the master in good faith and within the scope of his apparent authority as master bind the vessel to the merchandise for the performance of such contracts, wholly irrespective of the ownership of the vessel and whether the master be the agent of the general or the special owner. If the general owner has allowed a third person to have the entire control, management, and employment of the vessel and thus become owner pro hac vice, the general owner must be deemed to consent that the special owner or his master may create liens binding on the interest of the general owner in the vessel as security for the performance...
Orton Vs. Smith
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1855
Orton v. Smith - 59 U.S. 263 (1855) U.S. Supreme Court Orton v. Smith, 59 U.S. 18 How. 263 263 (1855) Orton v. Smith 59 U.S. (18 How.) 263 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN Syllabus Those only who have a clear, legal, and equitable title to land, connected with possession, have a right to claim the interference of a court of equity to give them peace or dissipate a cloud on the title. Therefore, where the complainant was the volunteer purchaser of a litigious claim, was the assignee of a secret equity for apparently a mere nominal consideration and of the bare legal title for a like consideration, and this legal title assigned to him during the pendency of a suit in chancery in a state court to ascertain the person justly entitled to it, it was error in the court below to grant to such complainant a perpetual injunction. The courts of the United States should not entertain a bill of peace upon a title in litigation in a state c...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »