Us Supreme Court Court February 1886 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.
Barry Vs. Edmunds
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-07-1886
Barry v. Edmunds - 116 U.S. 550 (1886) U.S. Supreme Court Barry v. Edmunds, 116 U.S. 550 (1886) Barry v. Edmunds Argued January 7-8, 1886 Decided February 7, 1886 116 U.S. 550 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Syllabus A suit cannot properly be dismissed by a circuit court of the United States as not substantially involving a controversy within the jurisdiction of the court unless the facts, when made to appear on the record, create a legal certainty of that conclusion. Where exemplary damages beyond the sum necessary to give a circuit court of the United States jurisdiction are claimed in an action for a malicious trespass, the court should not dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction simply because the record shows that the actual injury caused to the plaintiff by the trespass was less than the jurisdictional amount. It is settled in this Court that in an action for a trespass accompanied with malice, the plaintiff may ...
Otis Vs. Oregon Steamship Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-01-1886
Otis v. Oregon Steamship Co. - 116 U.S. 548 (1886) U.S. Supreme Court Otis v. Oregon Steamship Co., 116 U.S. 548 (1886) Otis v. Oregon Steamship Company Submitted January 25, 1886 Decided February 1, 1886 116 U.S. 548 ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Syllabus If a record shows on its face that a federal question was not necessarily involved in the decision of a case in a state court, and does not show affirmatively that one was raised, this Court will not go out of the record to the opinion of that court or elsewhere to ascertain whether one was in fact decided. Moore v. Mississippi, 21 Wall. 638, affirmed and applied. This was a motion to dismiss a writ of error for want of jurisdiction. The facts which make the case are stated in the opinion of the Court. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a suit brought December 12, 1878, by the Oregon Steamship Company, the defendant in error, against George K. Page 116 U. S. 549 Ot...
Jones Vs. Simpson
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-01-1886
Jones v. Simpson - 116 U.S. 609 (1886) U.S. Supreme Court Jones v. Simpson, 116 U.S. 609 (1886) Jones v. Simpson Submitted December 10, 1885 Decided February 1, 1886 116 U.S. 609 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Syllabus A sale of personal property made by the vendor with intent to defraud his creditors, but for valuable consideration paid to him by the vendee, followed by actual and continued change of possession, is valid against the vendor's creditors unless it also appears that the vendee acted in bad faith. This rule prevails in Kansas. In the trial of an action by the vendee of personal property against an officer seizing it on a writ of attachment issued at the suit of a creditor of the vendor to recover damages for the seizure, declarations of the vendor made after delivery of the property to the vendee, but on the same day and fairly Page 116 U. S. 610 forming part of the res gestae, are admissible to show intent to def...
Sands Vs. Edmunds
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-01-1886
Sands v. Edmunds - 116 U.S. 585 (1886) U.S. Supreme Court Sands v. Edmunds, 116 U.S. 585 (1886) Sands v. Edmunds Argued January 7-8, 1886 Decided February 1, 1886 116 U.S. 585 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA Syllabus After lawful tender to the proper state officer of the requisite amount of coupons (receivable by the terms of the act of the Virginia of March 30, 1871, in payment of taxes, debts, dues and demands due the state), for a "separate revenue license" by a person otherwise duly authorized and licensed to practice as an attorney at law, and after refusal by that officer to receive the same, or to issue the "separate revenue license," the person so making the tender may, by mandamus, compel the officer to receive the coupons and to deliver them to the proper official for identification and verification according to the terms of the act of that state of January 14, 1882. The plaintiff in error filed in the Circuit Court of Fauquier Count...
Royall Vs. Virginia
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-01-1886
Royall v. Virginia - 116 U.S. 572 (1886) U.S. Supreme Court Royall v. Virginia, 116 U.S. 572 (1886) Royall v. Virginia Argued January 7-8, 1886 Decided February 1, 1886 116 U.S. 572 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA Syllabus An assessment made by a statute of Virginia a condition precedent to obtaining a license for pursuing a business or profession within the state is a tax, debt, or demand within the meaning of the act of that State of March 30, Page 116 U. S. 573 1871, making coupons on the bonds of the state receivable for "taxes, debts, dues and demands due the state." The "separate revenue license" which persons authorized and licensed to practice as attorneys at law in the courts of Virginia are required by the statutes of that state to obtain before practicing, is a tax laid for revenue, and not an exaction for purposes of regulation. When a statute of a state imposes license taxes for purposes of revenue upon persons pursuing lawful ...
Central Railroad Company Vs. Bourbon County
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-01-1886
Central Railroad Company v. Bourbon County - 116 U.S. 538 (1886) U.S. Supreme Court Central Railroad Company v. Bourbon County, 116 U.S. 538 (1886) Central Railroad Company v. Bourbon County Submitted January 25, 1886 Decided February 1, 1886 116 U.S. 538 ORIGINAL MOTION IN A CAUSE PENDING IN ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY Syllabus Cases in which the execution of a state revenue law has been enjoined or stayed will be advanced only on motion of the state or of the party claiming under the law and on proof that the operations of the state government will be embarrassed by the delay. Page 116 U. S. 539 This was a motion to advance, founded upon the following allegations: "That said action was brought for the recovery of alleged delinquent taxes assessed and levied by the state Board of Equalization of Kentucky upon that part of the Kentucky Central Railroad which is in Bourbon County in said state. The assessments were made under and by virtue of an Act of the Ge...
Liebke Vs. Thomas
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-01-1886
Liebke v. Thomas - 116 U.S. 605 (1886) U.S. Supreme Court Liebke v. Thomas, 116 U.S. 605 (1886) Liebke v. Thomas Submitted January 8, 1886 Decided February 1, 1886 116 U.S. 605 ERROR TO THE ST. LOUIS COURT OF APPEALS IN THE STATE OF MISSOURI Syllabus Notice given to the holder and owner of an accommodation note, under 17 of the Act of June 22, 1874, of composition proceedings in bankruptcy by or against the payee and endorser for whose accommodation the note was Page 116 U. S. 606 given, is notice of the original bankruptcy proceedings to the accommodation maker, and notice that the payee may be discharged thereby. A lawful composition with creditors under 17 of the act of June 22, 1874, and its performance by the party, has the effect of a discharge in bankruptcy. This was an action by the maker of an accommodation note against the payee for whose accommodation it was made. Judgment for plaintiff below, which this writ of error was sued out to review. MR. JUSTICE MIL...
Northern Pacific R. Co. Vs. Herbert
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-01-1886
Northern Pacific R. Co. v. Herbert - 116 U.S. 642 (1886) U.S. Supreme Court Northern Pacific R. Co. v. Herbert, 116 U.S. 642 (1886) Northern Pacific Railroad Company v. Herbert Argued December 4, 8-9, 1885 Decided February 1, 1886 116 U.S. 642 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF DAKOTA Syllabus When the allowance of a challenge to a juror for cause is assigned as error, it should appear that it was not peremptory if peremptory challenges are allowed. An allowance of a challenge to a juror for cause and the selection of another competent and unbiased juror in his place works no prejudice to the other party. It is not error that the court below, after motion to set aside a verdict as excessive, ordered that the motion should be granted unless the plaintiff should at once remit the amount deemed by the court to be in excess, but in that case the motion should be denied and judgment entered for the remainder. An employer is not liable for injuries to his servant ca...
ChaffIn Vs. Taylor
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-01-1886
Chaffin v. Taylor - 116 U.S. 567 (1886) U.S. Supreme Court Chaffin v. Taylor, 116 U.S. 567 (1886) Chaffin v. Taylor Argued January 7-8, 1856 Decided February 1, 1886 116 U.S. 567 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA Syllabus At the former hearing of this case, Chaffin v. Taylor, 114 U. S. 309 , every question of law was decided which is raised by the pleadings filed below after the judgment of reversal at that hearing. Whatever has been decided on one writ of error cannot be reexamined or a subsequent writ of error brought in the same suit. Supervisors v. Kennicott, 94 U. S. 498 , again affirmed. A former judgment in this case rendered against the plaintiff in error by the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia was reversed by this Court, a report of which will be found in 114 U. S. 114 U.S. 309. The record at that time showed the state of the pleadings as follows: The declaration was in trespass de bonis asportatis; the def...
Boyd Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-01-1886
Boyd v. United States - 116 U.S. 616 (1886) U.S. Supreme Court Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) Boyd v. United States Argued December 11, 14, 1886 Decided February 1, 1886 116 U.S. 616 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus The 6th section of the act of June 22, 1874, entitled "An act to amend the customs revenue laws," &c.;, which section authorizes a court of the United States, in revenue cases, on motion of the government attorney, to require the defendant or claimant to produce in court his private books, invoice and papers, or else the allegations of the attorney to be taken as confessed: Held, to be unconstitutional and void a applied to suits for penalties or to establish a forfeiture of the party's goods, as being repugnant to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution. Where proceedings were in rem to establish a forfeiture of certain goods alleged to have been fraudulently imported with...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »