Us Supreme Court Court January 1857 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.
Jones Vs. Mcmasters
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1857
Jones v. McMasters - 61 U.S. 8 (1857) U.S. Supreme Court Jones v. McMasters, 61 U.S. 20 How. 8 8 (1857) Jones v. McMasters 61 U.S. (20 How.) 8 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT OF COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF TEXAS Syllabus Where a person was born at Goliad, then in the State of Coahuila and Texas, being a part of the Republic of Mexico, which place was also the domicil of her father and mother until their deaths, and was removed at the age of four years, before the declaration of Texan independence, to Matamoras, in Mexico, this person is an alien, and can sue in the courts of the United States. Page 61 U. S. 9 Her allegiance remained unchanged unless by her election, which it was incumbent on the opposite party to show. According to general principles, mere alienage did not forfeit a title to land in Texas, and although the Constitution of Texas provided that no alien should hold land in Texas except by title emanating directly from the government of that Republic, ...
Doswell Vs. De La Lanza
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1857
Doswell v. De La Lanza - 61 U.S. 29 (1857) U.S. Supreme Court Doswell v. De La Lanza, 61 U.S. 20 How. 29 29 (1857) Doswell v. De La Lanza 61 U.S. (20 How.) 29 ERROR FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF TEXAS Syllabus This Court again decides, as in former cases, that a refusal of the court below to grant a new trial is not a proper subject for a bill of exception. In an action of ejectment, where the defendant pleads the statute of limitations, he must connect his own possession with the adverse possession and title of another person which is set up as a defense. Otherwise, the plea is not good. Under the decisions of the courts of Texas, a survey made of land beyond the limits of the surveyor's district, although invalid at the time, is rendered good by the subsequent approval of the proper county surveyor. This Court adopts the rule. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court. MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court. In his ...
United States Vs. Cambuston
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1857
United States v. Cambuston - 61 U.S. 59 (1857) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Cambuston, 61 U.S. 20 How. 59 59 (1857) United States v. Cambuston 61 U.S. (20 How.) 59 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus The regulations for the colonization of the territories of the government of Mexico, made 21st November, 1828, in pursuance of the act of the General Congress, August 18, 1824, provided: 1st. That the governors of the territories should be empowered to grant vacant lands, among others, to private persons who may ask for them, for the purpose of cultivating and inhabiting the same. 2d. That every person soliciting lands shall address to the governor a petition, expressing his name, country, and religion, and describing as distinctly as possible, by means of a map, the land asked for. 3d. The governor shall proceed to obtain the necessary information, whether the petition contains the proper conditions requir...
Secombe Vs. Steele
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1857
Secombe v. Steele - 61 U.S. 94 (1857) U.S. Supreme Court Secombe v. Steele, 61 U.S. 20 How. 94 94 (1857) Secombe v. Steele 61 U.S. (20 How.) 94 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF MINNESOTA Syllabus When a transcript of a record of another court was attached to the answer as an exhibit, and portions of it particularly referred to, and the record of the entire case pleaded, a decree, certified by the clerk, which had been executed by the parties, must be considered as part of the record, although it had not the signature of the judge. The signature of the judge is not the only evidence by which a decree can be authenticated. Property was agreed to be sold, and the payment was to be made by a deposit of the price in one of two banks in Boston, and a certificate delivered to the vendor. The vendee made the deposit in another bank in Boston, and tendered the certificate to the vendor, within the time limited, and the vendor having refused to receive it, he tendered the...
Smith Vs. Corporation of Washington
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1857
Smith v. Corporation of Washington - 61 U.S. 135 (1857) U.S. Supreme Court Smith v. Corporation of Washington, 61 U.S. 20 How. 135 135 (1857) Smith v. Corporation of Washington 61 U.S. (20 How.) 135 ERROR FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT 0F THE UNITED STATES FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON Syllabus The power granted by Congress to the Corporation of the City of Washington "to open and keep in repair streets, avenues, lanes, alleys &c.; agreeably to the plan of the city" includes the power to alter the grade or change the level of the land on which the streets by the plan of the city are laid out. If, in the exercise of this power, an individual proprietor suffers inconvenience or is put to expense, the corporation are not liable in damages. This was an action on the case brought in the circuit court by Ann C. Smith against the Corporation of Washington to recover damages alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff by reason of the alteration of the grade of K Street, in the City o...
Grant Vs. Poillon
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1857
Grant v. Poillon - 61 U.S. 162 (1857) U.S. Supreme Court Grant v. Poillon, 61 U.S. 20 How. 162 162 (1857) Grant v. Poillon 61 U.S. (20 How.) 162 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus Where the master of a vessel was also part owner, and made a contract of affreightment with a lumber company, of which he was also a member, and the cargo was consigned to the master, the case is not within admiralty jurisdiction, but appropriate to that of a court of chancery. Flitner was one of the libellants, and, as he was also a member of the Constellation Lumber Company, he was on both sides of the case. The circumstances under which the libel was filed are stated in the opinion of the Court. The district court dismissed the libel, and upon an appeal, this decree was affirmed by the circuit court. The libellants then appealed to this Court. Page 61 U. S. 167 MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court. The libellants,...
Dean Vs. Mason
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1857
Dean v. Mason - 61 U.S. 198 (1857) U.S. Supreme Court Dean v. Mason, 61 U.S. 20 How. 198 198 (1857) Dean v. Mason 61 U.S. (20 How.) 198 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND Syllabus In suits for the infringement of a patent right, the rule of damages is the amount which the infringer actually realized in profits, not what he might have made by reasonable diligence. After a bill is taken pro confesso in the circuit court, a motion to allow an answer to be filed is addressed to the discretion of the court, and from a refusal so to do an appeal does not lie to this Court. A motion to dismiss the complainant's bill upon the ground that he had parted with his interest was properly overruled, because such assignment was not made until after the time when the computation of profits ended. Page 61 U. S. 199 The bill was filed by Nathan Mason of the City of Providence, in the District of Rhode Island, planer of boards; Charles D. Gou...
United States Vs. Breitling
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1857
United States v. Breitling - 61 U.S. 252 (1857) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Breitling, 61 U.S. 20 How. 252 252 (1857) United States v. Breitling 61 U.S. (20 How.) 252 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA Syllabus The Circuit Court of the United States in Alabama, by a general rule, adopted the practice of the state courts which is regulated by a statute providing that no bill of exceptions can be signed after the adjournment of the court unless with the consent of counsel, &c.; But where a judge holding the Supreme Court in Alabama signed a bill of exceptions under special circumstances after adjournment and without the consent of counsel, this Court will consider the exception as properly before it. It is in the power of a court to suspend its own rules or except a particular case from them to subserve the purposes of justice. And the signature of the judge was attached to the bill, in conformity with the decisions of ...
Day Vs. Union India Rubber Company
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1857
Day v. Union India Rubber Company - 61 U.S. 216 (1857) U.S. Supreme Court Day v. Union India Rubber Company, 61 U.S. 20 How. 216 216 (1857) Day v. Union India Rubber Company 61 U.S. (20 How.) 216 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus The party defendants in the present suit have as much right to manufacture various articles of India rubber under Chaffee's patent as the licensees in the case of Hartshorn v. Day, 19 How. 211. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court. Page 61 U. S. 217 MR. JUSTICE NELSON delivered the opinion of the Court. The bill was filed in the court below by Day as assignee of the patent of Edwin M. Chaffee, for a new improvement in preparing and applying India rubber to cloth &c.;, dated the 31st August, 1836, and renewed for seven years from the 31st August, 1850, against the defendants, for an alleged infringement during the running of the renewed term. The questions involved in the ...
Gazzam Vs. Lessee of Phillips
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1857
Gazzam v. Lessee of Phillips - 61 U.S. 372 (1857) U.S. Supreme Court Gazzam v. Lessee of Phillips, 61 U.S. 20 How. 372 372 (1857) Gazzam v. Lessee of Phillips 61 U.S. (20 How.) 372 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA Syllabus The decision of this Court in the case of Brown v. Clements, 3 How. 650, reviewed and controlled. The quantity of land granted to a patentee in pursuance of a preemption right under the act of 29th May, 1830, must, in an action at law, be ascertained from the description in the patent, and cannot be controlled by any supposed original equity to the whole of a quarter section to which a claim might have been made before the register and receiver. Some latitude of discretion is allowed to the Surveyor General under the Act of 24th April, 1820, and the instructions of the land office, in the subdivision of fractional sections containing more than one hundred and sixty acres, and he is not obliged, absolutely, and under all circumstances, t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »