Court : US Supreme Court
Cornell v. Weidner - 127 U.S. 261 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court Cornell v. Weidner, 127 U.S. 261 (1888) Cornell v. Weidner No. 210 Argued April 19, 1888 Decided April 30, 1888 127 U.S. 261 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN Syllabus A patent for a bushing or tapering ring of metal for the bungs of casks, with a screw thread on its outer surface and with a notched flange at the edge, so as to enable the bushing to be forced into place by a wrench having a projection to fit the notch, was reissued, nearly seven years afterwards, for a bushing without any notch. Held that the reissue was void. Bill in equity for the infringement of letters patent. Decree dismissing the bill. Complainant appealed. The case is stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court. This was a bill in equity for the infringement of a second reissue of letters patent. When the facts are understood, the case is clear. The or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Bayard v. United States ex Rel. White - 127 U.S. 246 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court Bayard v. United States ex Rel. White, 127 U.S. 246 (1888) Bayard v. United States ex Rel. White No. 938 Argued October 11-12, 1887 Decided April 30, 1888 127 U.S. 246 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus In answer to a petition for a writ of mandamus to be issued to the Secretary of State to compel him to pay to the petitioner part of an award made by the Mexican Claims Commission, the Secretary set up that he could not recognize the claim of the petitioner without ignoring the conflicting claim of another person, between whom and the petitioner litigation in respect to the award was then, and had for a long time, been pending. On demurrer to the answer, held that it was sufficient. The Secretary, in view of the litigation, was not bound to decide between the conflicting claims. Whether it was a good answer to the petition that the Secretary was not invested with a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States ex Rel. Angarica v. Bayard - 127 U.S. 251 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court United States ex Rel. Angarica v. Bayard, 127 U.S. 251 (1888) United States ex Rel. Angarica v. Bayard No. 1241 Argued January 5, 1888 Decided April 30, 1888 127 U.S. 251 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus On a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Secretary of State to compel him to pay to the petitioner the interest or income derived from the investment of a sum of money received by a predecessor of his in office as part of an award made by the Spanish-American Claims Commission, which sum of money had been eventually paid to the petitioner, held that the Secretary was not liable to pay such interest or income because (1) The award was to he paid by the Spanish government to the government of the United States. (2) It was paid by the Spanish government to the Secretary of the United States, representing the government of the United States. (3) The money wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Broadhead - 127 U.S. 212 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Broadhead, 127 U.S. 212 (1888) United States v. Broadhead Nos. 233, 234 Argued April 18, 1888 Decided April 30, 1888 127 U.S. 212 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus On the authority of United States v. Hill, 123 U. S. 681 , it is held that an action against sureties to recover on a bail bond conditioned for the appearance of the principal to answer to an indictment for making and forging checks against an assistant treasurer is not a case for the enforcement of a revenue law within the intent of Rev.Stat. 699. No interest can be recovered in an action by the United States upon a bail bond conditioned for the appearance of a person to answer to an indictment for forgery. These were actions against sureties on bail bonds. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the Court. These c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Noyes v. Mantle - 127 U.S. 348 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court Noyes v. Mantle, 127 U.S. 348 (1888) Noyes v. Mantle No. 242 Argued and Submitted April 19, 1888 Decided April 30, 1888 127 U.S. 348 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF MONTANA Syllabus When the location of a mineral lode or vein, properly made, is perfected under the law, the lode or vein becomes the property of the locators or their assigns, and the government holds the title in trust for them. Where a location of a vein or lode of mineral or other deposits has been made under the law, and its boundaries have been specifically marked on the surface so as to be readily traced, and notice of the location has been recorded in the usual books of record within the district, that vein or lode is "known to exist" within the meaning of that phrase as used in Rev.Stat. 2333, although personal knowledge of the fact may not be possessed by the applicant for a patent for a placer claim. Page 127 U. S. 349 Bill...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Freedman's Savings & Trust Co. v. Shepherd - 127 U.S. 494 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court Freedman's Savings & Trust Co. v. Shepherd, 127 U.S. 494 (1888) Freedman's Savings and Trust Company v. Shepherd Nos. 230, 256 Argued April 17-18, 1888 Decided April 30, 1888 127 U.S. 494 APPEALS FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus When a mortgage contains no provision for the payment of rents and profits to the mortgagee while the mortgagor remains in possession, the mortgagee is not entitled, as against the owner of the equity of redemption, to the rents and profits of the mortgaged premises until he takes actual possession or until possession is taken in his behalf, even though the income may be expressly pledged as security for the mortgage debt, with the right in the mortgagee to take possession upon failure by the mortgagor to perform the conditions of the mortgage. Section 3737 of the Revised Statutes respecting the transfer of contracts with the United States...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
California v. Central Pacific R. Co. - 127 U.S. 1 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court California v. Central Pacific R. Co., 127 U.S. 1 (1888) California v. Central Pacific Railroad Company Nos. 660-664, 1157 Argued January 11-13, 1888 Decided April 30, 1888 127 U.S. 1 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus By the Constitution of California, two modes of assessment for taxation are prescribed -- one by a State Board of Equalization, the other by county boards and local assessors. All property is directed to be assessed in the county, city, etc., in which it is situated except that the franchise, roadway, roadbed, rails, and rolling stock of any railroad operated in more than one county are to be assessed by the state board and apportioned to the several counties, etc. By an act of the legislature, the state board is required to include in their assessment steamers engaged in transporting passengers and freights across waters wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
De Saussure v. Gaillard - 127 U.S. 216 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court De Saussure v. Gaillard, 127 U.S. 216 (1888) De Saussure v. Gaillard No. 205 Argued and Submitted April 4, 1888 Decided April 30, 1888 127 U.S. 216 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA Syllabus It appearing that, before reaching and deciding the federal question discussed here, the Supreme Court of South Carolina had already decided that the plaintiff's action could not be sustained according to the meaning of the provisions of the statute of that state under which it was brought, this Court dismisses the writ of error for want of jurisdiction, under the well settled rule that to give this Court jurisdiction of a writ of error to a state court, it must appear affirmatively not only that a federal question was presented for decision to the highest court of the state having jurisdiction, but that its decision was necessary to the determination of the cause, and that it was actually decided, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Porter v. White - 127 U.S. 235 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court Porter v. White, 127 U.S. 235 (1888) Porter v. White No. 221 Argued April 12, 1888 Decided April 30, 1888 127 U.S. 235 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus In this case it was held on the facts that the plaintiff in a suit in equity had not established his right to a decree that he is entitled to the one-half of the attorney's fees in an award against Mexico by the joint United States and Mexican commission, which fees had been collected by the defendant. The plaintiff failed to establish any equitable lien on the award by showing a distinct appropriation of a part of it in his favor or any agreement for his payment out of it. In equity. Decree dismissing the bill. Complainant appealed. The case is stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a bill in equity filed in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia by Richard H. Porter agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Jones' Administrator v. Craig - 127 U.S. 213 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court Jones' Administrator v. Craig, 127 U.S. 213 (1888) Jones' Administrator v. Craig No. 235 Submitted April 18, 1888 Decided April 30, 1888 127 U.S. 213 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA Syllabus A brought ejectment against B. B thereupon filed a bill in equity (which was subsequently amended) to remove a cloud from the title, setting up that the deed under which A claimed was a mortgage, with a written Page 127 U. S. 214 contract of defeasance. A demurred. Upon hearing on the demurrer, it was ordered that if B should, within fifteen days, bring into court the amount due on the mortgage and interest and all taxes paid by A, etc., A should be restrained from further prosecution of the ejectment suit, but that if he should fail to do so within that time, the bill should be dismissed and the defendant allowed to proceed with the suit. Held: (1) That this order,...
Tag this Judgment!