Court : US Supreme Court
Schlesinger v. Beard - 120 U.S. 264 (1887) U.S. Supreme Court Schlesinger v. Beard, 120 U.S. 264 (1887) Schlesinger v. Beard Argued January 13, 1887 Decided January 31, 1887 120 U.S. 264 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT Of THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus Punchings and clippings of wrought iron boiler plates and of wrought sheet iron, left after the completion of the process of the manufacture of the boiler plates into boilers, and of the ends of bridge rods and beams of wrought iron, cut off to bring the rods and beams to the required length and to remove imperfections, were in "actual use," within the meaning of the statute, in the manufacture of those respective things, and on importation into the United States are subject to duty as "wrought scrap iron." Two actions at law: the first to recover back duties alleged to have been illegally exacted; the second, to recover additional duties after delivery of the goods. Judgment against the importers, wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Winchester v. Heiskell - 120 U.S. 273 (1887) U.S. Supreme Court Winchester v. Heiskell, 120 U.S. 273 (1887) Winchester v. Heiskell Submitted January 25, 1887 Decided January 31, 1887 120 U.S. 273 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE Syllabus The Court restates what was decided in Winchester v. Heiskell, 119 U. S. 450 , and, on petition for rehearing, adheres to it. This was a petition for a rehearing in the case decided in 119 U. S. 119 U.S. 450, 119 U. S. 453 . MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court. This petition is denied, but inasmuch as the petitioners think that the points on which they relied for a reversal of the judgment were not clearly understood, we will restate what was decided. 1. We held that as the suit of Townsend v. Jones was pending when Townsend filed his petition in bankruptcy and when he made his assignment to Winchester, the assignee, Winchester, Page 120 U. S. 274 as such assignee, had the right to appear in that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Grant v. Phoenix Life Ins. Co. - 120 U.S. 271 (1887) U.S. Supreme Court Grant v. Phoenix Life Ins. Co., 120 U.S. 271 (1887) Grant v. Phoenix Life Insurance Company Submitted January 17, 1887 Decided January 31, 1887 120 U.S. 271 ORIGINAL MOTION IN TWO CAUSES PENDING IN THIS COURT ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus In a suit for foreclosing a mortgage, it appearing that a receiver has been appointed of the mortgaged premises and that the mortgagor, appellant, is unable to pay the cost of printing the record on appeal and that there are rents and profits in the receiver's hands collected during the pendency of the suit, the Court orders the receiver to pay to the clerk the sum estimated to be necessary to complete the cost of printing the record. The following motion was filed in these cases: "The above appellant [Grant] moves the honorable the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, that Brainard H. Warner, the receiver appoint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Hibernia Ins. Co. v. St. Louis Transportation Co. - 120 U.S. 166 (1887) U.S. Supreme Court Hibernia Ins. Co. v. St. Louis Transportation Co., 120 U.S. 166 (1887) Hibernia Insurance Company v. St. Louis Transportation Company Argued January 17, 1887 Decided January 31, 1887 120 U.S. 166 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI Syllabus In a suit in equity by an insurance company against a transportation company and the transferee of its property to recover the amount paid by the insurance company as insurer of goods alleged to have been lost in transportation by the negligence of the transportation company, held, without passing on any other question, that negligence was not proved and that the loss happened by perils excepted in the contract of transportation. This was a bill in equity. The court below dismissed the bill, and plaintiff appealed. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court. MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Boeffinger v. Tuyes - 120 U.S. 198 (1887) U.S. Supreme Court Boeffinger v. Tuyes, 120 U.S. 198 (1887) Boeffinger v. Tuyes Argued January 14, l7, 1887 Decided January 31, 1887 120 U.S. 198 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Syllabus The payment, after an adverse decree in the appellate court, of an agreed sum in compromise and settlement of his liability by a surety on an appeal bond to the attorney of record in the suit, fully authorized by his principal to make the settlement and compromise, and a written receipt, signed by the attorney as attorney of record, stating that the money is paid "in full satisfaction of the decree rendered against" the surety, constitute an accord and satisfaction which can be set up in an action against the surety on the appeal bond, and proof that the proposition for compromise was made by defendant and accepted by plaintiff in the original snit, with the expectation that the litigation would b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Meyers v. Block - 120 U.S. 206 (1887) U.S. Supreme Court Meyers v. Block, 120 U.S. 206 (1887) Meyers v. Block, 120 U.S. 206 (1887) Argued December 15-16, 1886 Decided January 31, 1887 120 U.S. 206 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA Syllabus An injunction bond in an action in the District Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana conditioned that the obligors "will well and truly pay the" obligee, "defendant in said injunction, all such damages as he may recover against us in case it should be decided that the said writ of injunction was wrongfully issued," which bond was made under an order of court, "that the injunction be maintained on the complaining creditors giving bond and security to save the parties harmless from the effects of said injunction" is a sufficient compliance with the order of the court, and when construed with reference to the rule prevailing in the federal courts (contrary to that prevailing in the state courts of Louisiana) that w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Everhart v. Huntsville College - 120 U.S. 223 (1887) U.S. Supreme Court Everhart v. Huntsville College, 120 U.S. 223 (1887) Everhart v. Huntsville College Argued January 20, 1887 Decided January 31, 1887 120 U.S. 223 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA Syllabus An averment that the complainant in a bill of equity "resides" in a state is not an averment that he is a citizen of the state, so as to give a circuit court of the United States jurisdiction over the subject matter by reason of citizenship of the parties. When the jurisdiction of a circuit court depends upon the citizenship of the parties, and that court takes jurisdiction and renders judgment, and the record in this Court in error or on appeal fails to show the requisite citizenship, the judgment will be reversed and the case remanded by this Court on its own motion, and the party in default adjudged to pay costs here. These two causes were argued and submitted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
King Bridge Co. v. Otoe County - 120 U.S. 225 (1887) U.S. Supreme Court King Bridge Co. v. Otoe County, 120 U.S. 225 (1887) King Bridge Company v. Otoe County Submitted January 7, 1887 Decided January 31, 1887 120 U.S. 225 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA Syllabus An order drawn upon a county treasurer by county officials in favor of A or order unendorsed, and a like order in favor of A, both assigned by A to B for a valuable consideration, constitute no cause of action in B's favor on which B can maintain an action in a circuit court of the United States on the ground of citizenship if A could not maintain the action there on the same ground, and if, in such action in B's favor, A's necessary qualification of citizenship does not affirmatively appear in the record in this Court, the judgment below will be reversed whether the question of jurisdiction be made or not, and plaintiff in error adjudged to pay costs in this Court. This...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Pacific Railroad - 120 U.S. 227 (1887) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Pacific Railroad, 120 U.S. 227 (1887) United States v. Pacific Railroad Submitted January 10, 1887 Decided January 31, 1887 120 U.S. 227 APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus The United States are not responsible for the injury or destruction of private property caused by their military operations during the late civil war, nor are private parties chargeable for works constructed on their property by the United States to facilitate such operations. Accordingly, where bridges on the line of a railroad were destroyed during the civil war by either of the contending forces, their subsequent rebuilding by the United states as a measure of military necessity, without the request of, or any contract with, the owner of the railroad imposes no liability upon such owner. Page 120 U. S. 228 These were appeals from the Court of Claims. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court. MR. J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Indianapolis Rolling Mill v. St. L., F.S. & W. R. - 120 U.S. 256 (1887) U.S. Supreme Court Indianapolis Rolling Mill v. St. L., F.S. & W. R., 120 U.S. 256 (1887) Indianapolis Rolling Mill v. St. Louis, Fort Scogg and Wichita Railroad Submitted January 7, 1887 Decided January 31, 1887 120 U.S. 256 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Syllabus The president of a manufacturing corporation who is also its superintendent, having general authority to contract by parol contract without the corporate seal for making and delivering its manufactured goods, has like authority, unless the power is withdrawn, to authorize the termination and release of such a contract. A board of directors of a corporation to whom the president of the company communicates his execution of a contract on the part of the corporation, which is within its corporate powers but unauthorized by the board, will be presumed to ratify his act unless it dissents within a reason...
Tag this Judgment!