Us Supreme Court Court January 1883 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.
Hayden Vs. Manning
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-29-1883
Hayden v. Manning - 106 U.S. 586 (1883) U.S. Supreme Court Hayden v. Manning, 106 U.S. 586 (1883) Hayden v. Manning Decided January 29, 1883 106 U.S. 586 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON Syllabus Under the Act of March 3, 1875, c. 137, the circuit court should dismiss a suit where the name of the complainant who has no real interest in the subject matter thereof has been improperly and collusively used for the purpose of creating a case cognizable there. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court. MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a case which the circuit court should have dismissed under the fifth section of the Act of March 3, 1875, concerning the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the United States, instead of granting the relief for which the complainant prayed. It is charged in the bill that Hayden, the appellee, while acting as the attorney of Rachel Dove and Bethuel Dove, her husband, ...
Embry Vs. Palmer
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-29-1883
Embry v. Palmer - 107 U.S. 3 (1883) U.S. Supreme Court Embry v. Palmer, 107 U.S. 3 (1883) Embry v. Palmer Decided January 29, 1883 107 U.S. 3 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT Syllabus 1. The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia is a court of the United States, and its judgment, when suit is brought thereon in any the Union, is, under the legislation of Congress, conclusive upon the defendant except for such cause as would be sufficient to set it aside in the courts of the district. 2. A. recovered judgment in that court against B. and C., who, when sued thereon in a state court, filed their bill to enjoin the collection of so much thereof as they claimed was in excess of the amount due on the original cause of action, and alleged, as a ground of relief, matter available as a defense in the action at law, which they were not prevented from setting up by accident, or by the fraud of A. unconnected with the negligence of themselves or agents...
St. Louis, I.M. and S. R. Co. Vs. Southern Express Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-29-1883
St. Louis, I.M. & S. R. Co. v. Southern Express Co. - 108 U.S. 24 (1883) U.S. Supreme Court St. Louis, I.M. & S. R. Co. v. Southern Express Co., 108 U.S. 24 (1883) St. Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern Railroad Company v. Southern Express Company Decided January 29, 1883 108 U.S. 24 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI Syllabus 1. A decree is final, for the purposes of appeal, when it terminates the litigation between the parties on the merits and leaves nothing to be done but enforce by execution what has been determined. 2. Matters relating to the administration of the cause and accounts to be settled in accordance with the principles fixed by the decree are incidents of the main litigation which may be settled by supplemental order after final decree. Motion to dismiss an appeal. The facts necessary for understanding the merits of the motion are stated thus by the Court. The Southern Express Company, an express carrier...
Pace Vs. Alabama
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-29-1883
Pace v. Alabama - 106 U.S. 583 (1883) U.S. Supreme Court Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 (1883) Pace v. Alabama Decided January 29, 1883 106 U.S. 583 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA Syllabus Section 4189 of the Code of Alabama, prohibiting a white person and a negro from living with each other in adultery or fornication, is not in conflict with the Constitution of the United States, although it prescribes penalties more severe than those to which the parties would be subject, were they of the same race and color. Section 4184 of the Code of Alabama provides that "If any man and woman live together in adultery or fornication, each of them must, on the first conviction of the offense, be fined not less than one hundred dollars, and may also be imprisoned in the county jail or sentenced to hard labor for the county for not more than six months. On the second conviction for the offense with the same person, the offender must be fined not less than three hundred...
Chickaming Vs. Carpenter
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-29-1883
Chickaming v. Carpenter - 106 U.S. 663 (1883) U.S. Supreme Court Chickaming v. Carpenter, 106 U.S. 663 (1883) Chickaming v. Carpenter Decided January 29, 1883 106 U.S. 663 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN Syllabus 1. Where the amount involved is sufficient, the citizen of a state other than Michigan who holds bonds of a municipal corporation in Michigan may, in the proper circuit court of the United States, maintain an action against it on them, or on the coupons thereto attached, although each is payable to a citizen of the state or bearer, or to bearer. 2. By the terms of the Act of Michigan of March 22, 1869, township bonds in aid of a railroad company are not invalid because they were issued after the expiration of sixty days from the date when the vote in favor of issuing them was cast by the electors. 3. In Michigan, where the execution of the instrument sued on is not put in issue by an appropriate plea, verified b...
Chicago and Alton R. Co. Vs. Wiggins Ferry Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-29-1883
Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. Wiggins Ferry Co. - 108 U.S. 18 (1883) U.S. Supreme Court Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 108 U.S. 18 (1883) Chicago and Alton Railroad Company v. Wiggins Ferry Company Decided January 29, 1883 108 U.S. 18 I N ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI Syllabus 1. When the courts of one state give to the statutes of another state a different construction from that given by the courts of the state in which the laws were enacted, no case arises under the removal act for the transfer of the cause to the federal courts. The remedy, if any, is by writ of error after final judgment. 2. A judgment of a state court set up as an estoppel cannot be corrected in a collateral proceeding in a court of the United States. Until reversed or brought for review in the manner provided by law, it is entitled to the same effect in the courts of the United States as in the courts of the state. Appeal from a...
Rogers Vs. Durant
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-29-1883
Rogers v. Durant - 106 U.S. 644 (1883) U.S. Supreme Court Rogers v. Durant, 106 U.S. 644 (1883) Rogers v. Durant Decided January 29, 1883 106 U.S. 644 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus l. The loss of a draft is not sufficiently proved, to support a suit in equity thereon against the drawer or acceptor, by evidence that it was left with a referee appointed by order of court to examine and report claims against an estate in the hands of a receiver, and that unsuccessful inquiries for it have been made of the referee, the receiver, and the attorney for the present defendant in those proceedings, without evidence of any search in the files of the court to which the report of the referee was returned or any application to that court to obtain the draft. 2. A decree of the circuit court dismissing upon the merits a bill of which this Court on appeal holds that there is no jurisdiction in equity, will be reversed, and ...
United States Vs. Teller
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-29-1883
United States v. Teller - 107 U.S. 64 (1883) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Teller, 107 U.S. 64 (1883) United States v. Teller Decided January 29, 1883 107 U.S. 64 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus By a special act, B. was allowed a pension of fifty dollars per month, which was paid to him until he claimed and received, under a subsequent general act, seventy-two dollars per month. Held that he is not entitled to take under both acts. Error to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. Section 4 of the act of March 3, 1873, c. 234, entitled "An Act to revise, consolidate, and amend the pension laws," provides that from and after June 4, 1872, all persons entitled by law to a less pension than thereinafter specified who, while in the military or naval service of the United States and in the line of duty, have been so permanently and totally disabled as to render them utterly helpless, or so nearly so as to require the regular personal...
Burgess Vs. Seligman
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-29-1883
Burgess v. Seligman - 107 U.S. 20 (1883) U.S. Supreme Court Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U.S. 20 (1883) Burgess v. Seligman Decided January 29, 1883 107 U.S. 20 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI Syllabus 1. By a statute of Missouri, stockholders of a corporation at its dissolution are liable for its debts, but it is provided that no person holding stock as executor, administrator, guardian, or trustee, and no person holding stock as collateral security, shall be personally subject to such liability, but the persona pledging such stock shall be considered as holding the same, and liable, and the estates and funds in the hands of executors &c.;, shall be liable. Held 1. That persona to whom a corporation pledges its stock as collateral security are within the exemption of the statute. 2. That certificates of the stock absolute on their face, issued in trust or as collateral security to a creditor, may be shown to be so held by ev...
Jenkins Vs. International Bank
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-29-1883
Jenkins v. International Bank - 106 U.S. 571 (1883) U.S. Supreme Court Jenkins v. International Bank, 106 U.S. 571 (1883) Jenkins v. International Bank Decided January 29, 1883 106 U.S. 571 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Syllabus 1. Where a judgment in a state court is rendered against one shortly thereafter declared to be a bankrupt, a writ of error to that judgment brought by his assignee is a suit within the meaning of Sec. 5057 of the Revised Statutes. 2. The limitation of time in that section applies to a suit by the assignee to recover a debt or other moneyed obligation, as well as to a controversy concerning property or rights of property to which there are adverse claims. MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the Court. In the course of a complicated litigation in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, between Samuel J. Walker and his creditors, it became a question whether the International Bank of Chicago, which was a party to the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »