Us Supreme Court Court March 1885 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.
Electric R. Signal Co. Vs. Hall Ry. Signal Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-30-1885
Electric R. Signal Co. v. Hall Ry. Signal Co. - 114 U.S. 87 (1885) U.S. Supreme Court Electric R. Signal Co. v. Hall Ry. Signal Co., 114 U.S. 87 (1885) Electric Railroad Signal Company v. Hall Railway Signal Company Argued January 6-7, 1885 Decided March 30, 1885 114 U.S. 87 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Syllabus Patent, No. 140,536, granted July 1, 1873, to Frank L. Pope for an improvement in electric signaling apparatus for railroads, was for a combination of several previously known parts or elements, to be used together in effecting the desired result of signaling, among which parts so used, and essential to the combination, was an insulated section or insulated sections of the track of the railroad on which the device might be used. In practical operation, the device protected by that patent required independent devices to equalize the resistance in the different circuits. The device patented to Thomas S. Hall and G...
Xenia Bank Vs. Stewart
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-30-1885
Xenia Bank v. Stewart - 114 U.S. 224 (1885) U.S. Supreme Court Xenia Bank v. Stewart, 114 U.S. 224 (1885) Xenia Bank v. Stewart Argued March 2, 1885 Decided March 30, 1885 114 U.S. 224 I N ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FUR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Syllabus The declaration of a cashier of a national bank concerning a disputed payment of money into the bank to take up a note left there for collection may be used by the plaintiff in a suit against the bank to recover the amount received by it from the sale of collateral held as security for the payment of the note -- if the declaration was made at the time of the transaction, or in response to timely inquiries by parties interested. It is within the scope of the general authority of the cashier of a national bank to receive offers for the purchase of securities held by the bank and to state whether or not the bank owns securities which a customer wishes to buy. A statement by the cashier of a national ...
Mower Vs. Fletcher
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-30-1885
Mower v. Fletcher - 114 U.S. 127 (1885) U.S. Supreme Court Mower v. Fletcher, 114 U.S. 127 (1885) Mower v. Fletcher Submitted March 22, 1885 Decided March 30, 1885 114 U.S. 127 I N ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus A judgment of the supreme court of a state remanding a case to a state court with orders to enter a specified judgment is a final judgment for the purposes of a writ of error to this Court. A judgment of a superior court remanding a case to an inferior court for entry of judgment and leaving no judicial discretion to the latter as to further proceedings is final. These were motions to dismiss two causes brought here in error from the Supreme Court of California. The grounds for the motions are stated in the opinion of the Court. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court. These motions are made on the ground that the judgments Page 114 U. S. 128 for the review of which the writs of error were sued out are not fin...
Sargent Vs. Hall Safe and Lock Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-30-1885
Sargent v. Hall Safe & Lock Co. - 114 U.S. 63 (1885) U.S. Supreme Court Sargent v. Hall Safe & Lock Co., 114 U.S. 63 (1885) Sargent v. Hall Safe and Lock Company Argued January 21, 26, 1885 Decided March 30, 1885 114 U.S. 63 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Syllabus In letters patent No. 186,369, granted to James Sargent, January 18, 1877, for improvements in time locks, the combination lock forming a member of the combinations claimed by the two claims of the patent, is one which has a bolt or bearing that turns on an axis or revolves, as distinguished from a sliding bolt, and those claims are not infringed by a structure in which the combination lock has not a turning or revolving bolt. Claim 2 of the patent requires that the tumblers of the combination lock and its spindle shall be free to rotate while the bolt work is held in its locked position, by the bolt or bearing of the combination lock. In patents for combinati...
Hayes Vs. Holly Springs
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-30-1885
Hayes v. Holly Springs - 114 U.S. 120 (1885) U.S. Supreme Court Hayes v. Holly Springs, 114 U.S. 120 (1885) Hayes v. Holly Springs Argued March 17, 1885 Decided March 30, 1885 114 U.S. 120 I N ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI Syllabus The Constitution of Mississippi, adopted December 1, 1869, provided as follows (Art. 12, sec. 14): "The legislature shall not authorize any county, city, or town, to become a stockholder in, or to lend its credit to, any company, association, or corporation, unless two-thirds of the qualified voters of such county, city, or town at a special election, or regular election, to be held therein, shall assent thereto." A city in that state subscribed for stock in a railroad corporation after what was called a "special election" was held, but neither the election nor the subscription was authorized by any act of the legislature. Afterward, the legislature passed an act providing " that all s...
Ex Parte Wilson
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-30-1885
Ex Parte Wilson - 114 U.S. 417 (1885) U.S. Supreme Court Ex Parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417 (1885) Ex Parte Wilson Submitted December 15, 1884 Decided March 30, 1885 114 U.S. 417 ORIGINAL Syllabus This Court cannot discharge on habeas corpus a person imprisoned under the sentence of a circuit or district court in a criminal case unless the sentence exceeds the jurisdiction of that court or there is no authority to hold the prisoner under the sentence. The provision of Rev.Stat. 1022, authorizing certain offenses to be prosecuted either by indictment or by information, does not preclude the prosecution by information of such other offenses as may be so prosecuted consistently with the Constitution and laws of the United States. In the record of a general conviction and sentence upon two counts, one of which is good, a misrecital of the verdict as upon the other count only, in stating the inquiry whether the convict had aught to say why sentence should not be pronounced against h...
Chapman Vs. Brewer
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-30-1885
Chapman v. Brewer - 114 U.S. 158 (1885) U.S. Supreme Court Chapman v. Brewer, 114 U.S. 158 (1885) Chapman v. Brewer Submitted March 19, 1885 Decided March 30, 1885 114 U.S. 158 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN Syllabus Where, under the Bankruptcy Act of March 2, 1867, a proceeding in involuntary bankruptcy was commenced in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Michigan before an attachment on land of the debtor, issued by a state court of Michigan, was levied on the land, the assignment in bankruptcy, though made after the attachment, related back and vested title to the land in the assignee as of the commencement of the proceeding, and where the attachment was levied within four months before the commencement of the proceeding, it was dissolved by the making of the assignment. The proceeding in this case was held to have been commenced before the attachment was levied. Page 114 U. S. 159 ...
Thomson Vs. Wooster
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-30-1885
Thomson v. Wooster - 114 U.S. 104 (1885) U.S. Supreme Court Thomson v. Wooster, 114 U.S. 104 (1885) Thomson v. Wooster Argued December 1-2, 1884 Decided March 30, 1885 114 U.S. 104 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus Under the rules and practice of this Court in equity, a decree pro confesso is not a decree as of course according to the prayer of the bill, nor as the complainant chooses to make it, but it should be made by the court according to what is proper to be decreed upon the statements of the bill, assumed to be true. The difference between former rules in equity and those now in force pointed out. Whether, after a bill is taken pro confesso, the defendant is entitled to an order permitting him to appear before the master is not now decided. After entry of a decree pro confesso, and while it stands unrevoked, the defendant cannot set up anything in opposition to it, either below or in this Court o...
United States Vs. Minor
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-30-1885
United States v. Minor - 114 U.S. 233 (1885) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Minor, 114 U.S. 233 (1885) United States v. Minor Submitted January 26, 1885 Decided March 30, 1885 114 U.S. 233 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus The United States has the same remedy in a court of equity to set aside or annul a patent for land on the ground of fraud in procuring its issue which an individual would have in regard to his own deed procured under similar circumstances. Page 114 U. S. 234 The doctrine of the conclusiveness of judgments and decrees of courts, as between those who are parties to the litigation is not applicable to the United States in regard to the proceedings before the land officers in granting patents for the public land. Though it has been said very truly in some cases that the officers of the Land Department exercise functions in their nature judicial, this has reference to cases in which individuals ha...
Detroit City Railway Co. Vs. Guthard
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-30-1885
Detroit City Railway Co. v. Guthard - 114 U.S. 133 (1885) U.S. Supreme Court Detroit City Railway Co. v. Guthard, 114 U.S. 133 (1885) Detroit City Railway Company v. Guthard Submitted March 2, 1885 Decided March 30, 1885 114 U.S. 133 I N ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Syllabus The jurisdiction of this Court for the review of a judgment of the highest court of a state depends on the decision by that court of one or more of the questions specified in 709 Rev.Stat. in the way therein mentioned. If it does not appear affirmatively that the federal question raised here was raised below and was decided or that its decision was necessary to the judgment rendered, this Court has no jurisdiction in error over the judgment of such state court. Page 114 U. S. 134 This was a motion to dismiss because the record did not show that any federal question was involved in the case in the state court. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court. This i...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »