Us Supreme Court Court December 1884 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.
Arthur Vs. Morgan
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-22-1884
Arthur v. Morgan - 112 U.S. 495 (1884) U.S. Supreme Court Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495 (1884) Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495 (1884) Submitted November 26, 1884 Decided December 22, 1884 112 U.S. 495 I N ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus A carriage in use abroad for a year by its owner, who brings it to this country for his own use here, and not for another person nor for sale, is "household effects" under 2505 Rev.Stat. (p. 484, 2d ed.), and free from duty. A protest against paying 35 percent duty on the carriage, which states that the carriage is "personal effects" and had been used over a year (as shown Page 112 U. S. 496 by affidavit), and that, under 2505 of the Revised Statutes, "personal effects in actual use" are free from duty, is a sufficient protest on which the amount paid for duty can be recovered back on the ground that the carriage was free from duty as "household effects" under the same secti...
United States Vs. Great Falls Mfg. Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-22-1884
United States v. Great Falls Mfg. Co. - 112 U.S. 645 (1884) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Great Falls Mfg. Co., 112 U.S. 645 (1884) United States v. Great Falls Manufacturing Company Argued December 1, 1884 Decided December 22, 1884 112 U.S. 645 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus Where property to which the United States asserts no title is taken by their officers or agents pursuant to an act of Congress as private property for the public use, the government is under an implied obligation to make just compensation to the owner. Page 112 U. S. 646 Such an implication being consistent with the constitutional duty of the government, as well as with common justice, the owner's claim for compensation is one arising out of implied contract within the meaning of the statute defining the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, although there may have been no formal proceedings for the condemnation of the property to public use. The owner may waive any objection he might b...
Union Metallic Cartridge Co. Vs. United States Cartridge Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-22-1884
Union Metallic Cartridge Co. v. United States Cartridge Co. - 112 U.S. 624 (1884) U.S. Supreme Court Union Metallic Cartridge Co. v. United States Cartridge Co., 112 U.S. 624 (1884) Union Metallic Cartridge Company v. United States Cartridge Company Argued December 5, 8-9, 1834 Decided December 22, 1884 112 U.S. 624 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus Letters patent No. 27,094 were issued to Ethan Allen February 14, 1860, for 14 years, for an "improvement in machine for making percussion cartridge cases." The patent was reissued in two divisions, No. 1,948 and No. 1,949, May 9, 1865. No. 1,948 embraced that part of the invention which concerned the mechanism for striking up the hollow rim at one stroke. The original patent and drawings showed such mechanism to be a moving die and a fixed bunter. In No. 1,948, the description was altered so as to state that the bunter might be carried against the die, and its two clai...
Bond Vs. Dustin
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-22-1884
Bond v. Dustin - 112 U.S. 604 (1884) U.S. Supreme Court Bond v. Dustin, 112 U.S. 604 (1884) Bond v. Dustin Argued December 3, 1884 Decided December 22, 1884 112 U.S. 604 I N ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus In an action at law, submitted to the decision of the circuit court by the parties waiving a trial by jury, in which the record does not show the filing of the stipulation in writing required by 649 of the Revised Statutes, this Court, upon bill of exceptions and writ of error, cannot review rulings upon the admission or rejection of testimony, or upon any other question of law growing out of the evidence, but may determine whether the declaration is sufficient to support the judgment. The filing of a stipulation in writing waiving a jury under 649 of the Revised Statutes is not sufficiently shown by a statement in the record or in the bill of exceptions that "the issue joined by consent is tried by the cou...
Torrent Arms Lumber Co. Vs. Rodgers
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-22-1884
Torrent Arms Lumber Co. v. Rodgers - 112 U.S. 659 (1884) U.S. Supreme Court Torrent Arms Lumber Co. v. Rodgers, 112 U.S. 659 (1884) Torrent Arms Lumber Company v. Rodgers Argued November 25, 1884 Decided December 22, 1884 112 U.S. 659 I N ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN Syllabus A reissue of a patent, applied for with unreasonable delay, and for the purpose of enlarging the specification and claims in order to include within the monopoly an invention patented after the original patent was granted, is void as to the new claims. This was an action at law brought June 25, 1879, by Alexander Rodgers, the defendant in error, against The Torrent and Arms Lumber Company, the plaintiff in error, to recover damages for the infringement of reissued letters patent for "a new and improved machine for rolling saw logs," dated June 25, 1873, granted to Rodgers as the assignee of Esau Torrent, the original patentee. The lumber company ...
Matthews Vs. Warner
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-22-1884
Matthews v. Warner - 112 U.S. 600 (1884) U.S. Supreme Court Matthews v. Warner, 112 U.S. 600 (1884) Matthews v. Warner Argued December 9-10, 1884 Decided December 22, 1884 112 U.S. 600 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus On the facts in this case, it appears that the plaintiff had no real ownership, actual control, or lawful right to the bonds in suit. The facts which make the case are stated in the opinion of the Court. MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from the Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, dismissing the bill of appellant, who was plaintiff below. See 6 F. 461. The bill alleges that the plaintiff is the owner of one hundred and fifty bonds of $1,000 each of the Memphis and Little Rock Railroad Company, and fifty similar bonds of the South Carolina Central Railroad Company, which have wrongfully come to the possession of defendants; that these bonds are...
Memphis and L.R. R. Co. Vs. Railroad Commissioners
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-22-1884
Memphis & L.R. R. Co. v. Railroad Commissioners - 112 U.S. 609 (1884) U.S. Supreme Court Memphis & L.R. R. Co. v. Railroad Commissioners, 112 U.S. 609 (1884) Memphis & Little Rock Railroad Company v. Railroad Commissioners Submitted November 25, 1884 Decided December 22, 1884 112 U.S. 609 I N ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS Syllabus A statute exempting a corporation from taxation confers the privilege only on the corporation specially referred to, and the right will not pass to its successor unless the intent of the statute to that effect is clear and express. Page 112 U. S. 610 Morgan v. Louisiana, 93 U. S. 217 ; Wilson v. Games, 103 U. S. 417 and Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Palmes, 109 U. S. 244 , affirmed. The franchise to be a corporation is not a subject of sale and transfer, unless made so by a statute which provides a mode for exercising it. A franchise to be a corporation is distinct from a franchise, as a corporation, to m...
The Elizabeth Jones
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-15-1884
The Elizabeth Jones - 112 U.S. 514 (1884) U.S. Supreme Court The Elizabeth Jones, 112 U.S. 514 (1884) The Elizabeth Jones Argued November 13, 1884 Decided December 15, 1884. 112 U.S. 514 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. Syllabus A schooner was sailing E. by N., with the wind S., and a bark was close-hauled, on the port tack. The schooner sighted the green light of the bark about half a point on the starboard bow, about three miles off, and starboarded a point. At two miles off, she starboarded another point. As a result, the light of the bark opened about two points. The bark let her sails shake and then filled them twice. The schooner continued to see the green light of the bark till the vessels were within a length of each other, when the bark opened her red light. At the moment the vessels were approaching collision, the schooner put her helm hard a-starboard and headed northeast. At that juncture, the bark ported,...
Carter Vs. Carusi
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-15-1884
Carter v. Carusi - 112 U.S. 478 (1884) U.S. Supreme Court Carter v. Carusi, 112 U.S. 478 (1884) Carter v. Carusi Argued November 24-25, 1884 Decided December 15, 1884 112 U.S. 478 I N ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus The provision in 715 Rev.Stat. District of Columbia that a lender contracting to receive an illegal rate of interest shall forfeit all such interest and shall be entitled to recover only the principal sum applies only to cases in which the illegal interest has been contracted for but has not been paid. The remedy given by 716 Rev.Stat. District of Columbia to recover back unlawful interest actually paid is exclusive. It is not error in a charge to make no reference to an issue raised by a plea, but unsupported by proof. Failure to instruct a jury upon an issue raised by a plea cannot be assigned as error, if the court below was not requested to charge the jury upon that issue. The Revised Statutes of the United States relati...
Power Vs. Baker
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-15-1884
Power v. Baker - 112 U.S. 710 (1884) U.S. Supreme Court Power v. Baker, 112 U.S. 710 (1884) Power v. Baker Submitted November 21, 1884 Decided December 15, 1884 112 U.S. 710 I N ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Syllabus Motions to vacate a supersedeas and other motions of that kind made before the record is printed must be accompanied by a statement of the facts on which they rest, agreed to by the parties, or supported by printed copies of so much of the record as will enable the Court to act understandingly, without reference to the transcript on file. This was a motion to vacate a supersedeas. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court. Neither the record in this case nor the part thereof on which this motion depends has been printed, and the appellees have neglected to state in their motion papers the facts as presented by the transcript on which they rely. An affidavit has been filed to the effect that the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »