Court : US Supreme Court
Hoadley's Administrators v. San Francisco - 124 U.S. 639 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court Hoadley's Administrators v. San Francisco, 124 U.S. 639 (1888) Hoadley's Administrators v. San Francisco Submitted December 8, 1887 Decided February 20, 1888 124 U.S. 639 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus When a cause is brought here by writ of error to a state court on the ground that the obligation of a contract has been impaired and property taken for public use without due compensation in violation of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, the first duty of this Court is to inquire whether the alleged contract or taking of property exists, and the facts in this record disclose no trace of the alleged contract or the alleged taking of property. Page 124 U. S. 640 The Act of Congress of July 1, 1864, 13 Stat. 332, c. 194, taken in connection with the ordinances of the City of San Francisco and the act of the Legislature of California which it ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States. v. Morant - 124 U.S. 647 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court United States. v. Morant, 124 U.S. 647 (1888) United States. v. Morant Submitted January 30, 1888 Decided February 20, 1888 124 U.S. 647 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Syllabus The Court, on motion, amends the judgment and decree in this case heretofore announced and reported 123 U. S. 123 U.S. 335. This case is reported 123 U. S. 123 U.S. 335. After judgment was announced, Mr. Robert B. Lines, of counsel for appellees, on their behalf, presented to the court the following motion, entitled in the cause: "Come now the appellees, by Robert B. Lines, of counsel, and move the Court that the decree heretofore rendered in the above entitled cause be set aside, and the said cause remanded to the District Court for the Northern District of Florida with instructions to enter its decree confirming the title of appellees to the lands in controversy, describi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Crawford v. Halsey - 124 U.S. 648 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court Crawford v. Halsey, 124 U.S. 648 (1888) Crawford v. Halsey Submitted February 2, 1888 Decided February 20, 1888 124 U.S. 648 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Syllabus A member of a bankrupt partnership, purchasing of the assignee in bankruptcy a debt due the firm, takes only such rights as the assignee has, under the bankrupt laws, to contest the validity of a transfer of the debt as in violation of those laws. Page 124 U. S. 649 This suit was brought on the 29th of July, 1876, by Henry Barnewell and William C. Gaynor, assignees in bankruptcy of Crawford, Walsh, Butt & Co., a mercantile firm doing business at Mobile, Alabama, composed of James Crawford, Charles Walsh, Cary W. Butt, Robert C. Crawford, and Charles Walsh, Jr., against William F. Halsey, to recover $4,118.55 and interest at the rate of eight percent per annum from February 28, 1874, claimed to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Shoecraft v. Bloxham - 124 U.S. 730 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court Shoecraft v. Bloxham, 124 U.S. 730 (1888) Shoecraft v. Bloxham Argued and Submitted February 2, 1888 Decided February 20, 1888 124 U.S. 730 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Syllabus A suit to enforce the performance of a contract is a suit to recover the contents of a chose in action within the meaning of 629 of the Revised Statutes. A deed of trust in the nature of a mortgage set out in full a contract between the mortgagor and certain parties for the conveyance of several parcels of land to him, and then conveyed to the mortgagee all the right, title, and interest which he, the mortgagor, had or might thereafter acquire "in and to" the lands embraced by the contract, held that the conveyance was in legal effect an assignment of the contract, and that the assignee could not maintain a suit for the enforcement of this contract in the circuit court of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
In re Royall - 125 U.S. 696 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court In re Royall, 125 U.S. 696 (1888) In re Royall No. 1351 of October Term, 1886 Submitted February 17, 1888 Decided February 20, 1888 125 U.S. 696 ORIGINAL MOTION IN A CAUSE ADJUDGED AT THE LAST TERM OF THIS COURT Syllabus The Court denies a motion to take action to cause the judgment of a state court to be reversed in obedience to the mandate of this Court on the ground that it did not appear that the petitioner had applied to the highest court of the state to carry the mandate of this Court into effect. Page 125 U. S. 697 " To the Honorable Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States: " "Your petitioner, William L. Royall, would respectfully show that in a prosecution against him in the Hustings Court of the City of Richmond, by the Commonwealth of Virginia, he was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of fifty dollars. Your petitioner applied to the Supreme Court of Appeals of said state for a writ of error to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Hoboken v. Pennsylvania R. Co. - 124 U.S. 656 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court Hoboken v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 124 U.S. 656 (1888) Hoboken v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company Argued February 8-9, 1888 Decided February 20, 1888 124 U.S. 656 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Syllabus The title of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company to its lands in controversy, derived by grant from the Hoboken Land and Improvement Company, was confirmed and enlarged by the Act of the Legislature of New Jersey of March 31, 1869, "to enable the United Companies to improve lands Page 124 U. S. 657 under water at Kill von Kull and other places," and the title of the other defendants to their lands in controversy, also derived by grant from said Hoboken Company, was enlarged and confirmed by grants from the state, under the Riparian Act of the legislature of the same 31st March, and thus all these titles are materially distinguished from the title of the Hoboken L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Andrews v. Hovey - 124 U.S. 694 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court Andrews v. Hovey, 124 U.S. 694 (1888) Andrews v. Hovey Submitted January 16, 1888 Decided February 20, 1888 124 U.S. 694 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA Syllabus The decision of this Court in Andrews v. Hovey, 123 U. S. 267 , adjudging reissued letters patent No. 4372, granted to Nelson W. Green, May 9, 1871, for an "improvement in the method of constructing artesian wells" to be invalid confirmed on an application for a rehearing. The case of Kendall v. Winsor, 21 How. 322, and other cases examined. The question of the proper construction of the second clause of 7 of the patent Act of March 3, 1839, 5 Stat. 354, as affecting the validity of a patent, considered. This was a petition for a rehearing of the case decided at this term and reported in 123 U.S. at 123 U. S. 267 . The allegations and prayer of the petitioners were as follows: Page 124 U. S. 695...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Pacific National Bank v. Mixter - 124 U.S. 721 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court Pacific National Bank v. Mixter, 124 U.S. 721 (1888) Pacific National Bank v. Mixter Argued January 9-11, 1888 Decided February 20, 1888 124 U.S. 721 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus No attachment can issue from a circuit court of the United States, in an action against a national bank before final judgment in the cause, and if such an attachment is made on mesne process and is then dissolved by means of a bond with sureties conditioned to pay to plaintiff the judgment which he may recover, given in accordance with provisions of the law of the state in which the action is brought, the bond is void, and the sureties are under no liability to plaintiff. The assets of a national bank having been illegally seized under a writ of attachment on mesne process, and a bond with sureties having been given to dissolve the attachment, which bond was invalid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Munson v. Mayor of City of New York - 124 U.S. 601 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court Munson v. Mayor of City of New York, 124 U.S. 601 (1888) Munson v. Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the of City of New York Argued February 2-3, 1888 Decided February 13, 1888 124 U.S. 601 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus A blank book, with pages numbered and ruled into spaces, in which bonds and their coupons, on being presented and paid, may be pasted in the order of their numbers -- the bonds on successive pages, and each bond and its coupons on the same page -- or, when any bond or coupon is paid without being surrendered, memoranda concerning it may be made, if under any circumstances a patentable invention, is not so if similar books have been in use before, differing only in grouping the coupons according to their dates of payment, and in having no spaces for the bonds. This was a bill in equity by Francis Munson against the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Phillips v. Mound City Land & Water Ass'n - 124 U.S. 605 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court Phillips v. Mound City Land & Water Ass'n, 124 U.S. 605 (1888) Phillips v. Mound City Land and Water Association Submitted January 6, 1888 Decided February 13, 1888 124 U.S. 605 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus An adjudication by the highest court of a state that certain proceedings before a Mexican tribunal prior to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo were insufficient to effect a partition of a tract of land before that time granted by the Mexican Government to three persons who were partners, which grant was confirmed by the commissioners appointed under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1851, 9 Stat. 631, "to ascertain and settle the private land claims in the State of California," presents no federal question which is subject to review here. This suit was brought for a partition of two adjacent tracts of land in the County of Los Angeles, known respectively ...
Tag this Judgment!