Us Supreme Court Court March 1892 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.
Camden Vs. Stuart
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-31-1892
Camden v. Stuart - 144 U.S. 104 (1892) U.S. Supreme Court Camden v. Stuart, 144 U.S. 104 (1892) Camden v. Stuart Nos. 159, 643 Submitted January 18, 1892 Decided March 31, 1892 144 U.S. 104 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA Syllabus The trust arising in favor of creditors by subscriptions to the stock of a corporation cannot be defeated by a simulated payment of such subscription, Page 144 U. S. 105 nor by any device short of an actual payment in good faith, and it was not intended, by anything said in Clark v. Bever, 139 U. S. 96 ; Fogg v. Blair, 139 U. S. 118 ; or Handley v. Stutz, 139 U. S. 417 , to overrule this principle or qualify it in any way, but only to draw a line beyond which the Court was unwilling to go in affixing a liability upon those who had purchased stock of the corporation or had taken it in good faith in satisfaction of their demands. Applying this rule to the testimony and mass of figures...
Southern Kansas Railway Co. Vs. Briscoe
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-28-1892
Southern Kansas Railway Co. v. Briscoe - 144 U.S. 133 (1892) U.S. Supreme Court Southern Kansas Railway Co. v. Briscoe, 144 U.S. 133 (1892) Southern Kansas Railway Company v. Briscoe No. 869 Submitted February 1, 1892 Decided March 28, 1892 144 U.S. 133 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Syllabus Under the provisions of the Act of July 4, 1884, 23 Stat. 73, c. 179, the United States Circuit and District Courts for the Northern District of Texas, the Western District of Arkansas, and the District of Kansas have concurrent jurisdiction, without reference to the amount in controversy and without distinction as to citizenship of the parties, over all controversies arising between the Southern Kansas Railway Company and the inhabitants of the Indian nations and tribes through whose territory that railway is constructed. This was a motion "to dismiss the writ of error herein, because the court has no jurisdiction to hear and det...
United States Vs. Budd
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-28-1892
United States v. Budd - 144 U.S. 154 (1892) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Budd, 144 U.S. 154 (1892) United States v. Budd No. 1391 Argued February 1, 1892 Decided March 28, 1892 144 U.S. 154 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Syllabus When, in a court of equity, it is proposed to set aside, annul, or correct a written instrument for fraud or mistake in the execution of the instrument itself, the testimony on which this is done must be clear, unequivocal and convincing, and not a bare preponderance of evidence, and this rule, well established in private litigations, has additional force when the object of the suit is to annul a patent issued by the United States. The Maxwell Land Grant Case, 121 U. S. 325 , is affirmed, and is quoted from and applied. When the defendant in a suit in equity appears and answers under oath, denying specifically the frauds charged, no presumptions arise against him if he fails to offer him...
Bedon Vs. Davie
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-28-1892
Bedon v. Davie - 144 U.S. 142 (1892) U.S. Supreme Court Bedon v. Davie, 144 U.S. 142 (1892) Bedon v. Davie No. 210 Argued March 16, 1892 Decided March 28, 1892 144 U.S. 142 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Syllabus A judgment for the plaintiffs was rendered in August, 1873, in a United States Court in South Carolina in an action at law in ejectment in which a minor was defendant, and appeared and answered by a guardian ad litem, and which minor became of age in December, 1885, and brought a writ of error from this Court, under § 1008 of the Revised Statutes, within two years after the entry of the judgment, exclusive of the term of the disability of the minor. The case involved the title to land in South Carolina under a will made in 1819, the testator dying in 1820. In June, 1850, a suit in equity was brought in a state court of South Carolina which set up that the title to the land, under the will, was either in the...
Dillman Vs. Hastings
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-28-1892
Dillman v. Hastings - 144 U.S. 136 (1892) U.S. Supreme Court Dillman v. Hastings, 144 U.S. 136 (1892) Dillman v. Hastings No. 201 Argued March 9, 1892 Decided March 28, 1892 144 U.S. 136 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Syllabus From March, 1875, to May, 1881, D. sent to H. from time to time various sums of money to be lent by him for complainant at interest, H. being Page 144 U. S. 137 instructed and agreeing to reinvest the interest in the same way. The money was at first invested at 10 percent, but early in 1881 H. informed D. that the rate was reduced to 8 percent. H. died in 1886. D. filed a bill in equity against his executors for an account and payment of what might be found due. They answered, and the cause was referred to a master. The executors produced at the hearing no books of accounts or papers of H. and no statements by him of his investments. In the account stated by the master, interest was included up t...
Rice Vs. Sanger
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-28-1892
Rice v. Sanger - 144 U.S. 197 (1892) U.S. Supreme Court Rice v. Sanger, 144 U.S. 197 (1892) Rice v. Sanger No. 1400 Submitted March 21, 1892 Decided March 28, 1892 144 U.S. 197 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS Syllabus The judgment of the supreme court of a state in a case which is remanded by that court to the trial court and retried there, is not a final judgment which can be reviewed by this Court. Motion to dismiss. The case is stated in the opinion. THE CHIEF JUSTICE: This was an action commenced by one Rice against Sanger et al. in the District Court of Bourbon County, Kansas wherein judgment was rendered February 27, 1888, in favor of plaintiff. The cause was thereupon taken by the defendants to the Supreme Court of that state, the judgment reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the views of the court as expressed in its written opinion. To review this judgment a writ of error from this Court was allowed, but ...
Brenham Vs. German American Bank
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-28-1892
Brenham v. German American Bank - 144 U.S. 173 (1892) U.S. Supreme Court Brenham v. German American Bank, 144 U.S. 173 (1892) Brenham v. German American Bank No. 120 Argued March 17, 1892 Decided March 28, 1892 144 U.S. 173 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Syllabus Bonds were issued by the City of Brenham, in Texas, in July, 1879, payable to bearer, to the amount of $15,000, under the assumed authority of an Act of Texas, passed in 1873, incorporating the city and granting its council authority to borrow, for general purposes, not exceeding $15,000 on the credit of the city. Held that the city had no authority to issue negotiable bonds, and that therefore even a bona fide holder of them could not recover against the city on them or their coupons. Power in a municipal corporation to borrow money not being nugatory although unaccompanied by the power to issue negotiable bonds therefor, it is easy for the legislature to con...
Waterman Vs. Banks
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-28-1892
Waterman v. Banks - 144 U.S. 394 (1892) U.S. Supreme Court Waterman v. Banks, 144 U.S. 394 (1892) Waterman v. Banks No. 190 Argued March 7-8, 1892 Decided March 28, 1892 144 U.S. 394 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus J.S.W. having advanced to his brother R.W.W. moneys to aid him in developing mines the title to which was in dispute, and being about to Page 144 U. S. 395 advance further sums for the same purpose, the latter executed and delivered to him an agreement as follows: "San Bernardino, Cal., May 14th, 1881. -- For and in consideration of one dollar to me in hand paid, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, I hereby agree that at any time within twelve months from this date, upon demand of J. S. Waterman or his heirs, administrators or assigns, I will execute to him a good and sufficient deed of conveyance to an undivided twenty-four one-hundredths (24/100) of the following mines, known as the ...
Gordon Vs. Third Nat'l Bank of Chattanooga
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-21-1892
Gordon v. Third Nat'l Bank of Chattanooga - 144 U.S. 97 (1892) U.S. Supreme Court Gordon v. Third Nat'l Bank of Chattanooga, 144 U.S. 97 (1892) Gordon v. Third National Bank of Chattanooga No. 176 Submitted February 29, 1892 Decided March 21, 1892 144 U.S. 97 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA Syllabus In an action brought in the Circuit Court of the United States in Alabama, the complaint described the plaintiff as a bank organized in accordance with the laws of the United States and as doing business in Tennessee, and the defendant as residing in the Alabama. The summons described the plaintiff as "a citizen of the State of Tennessee," and the defendant "as a citizen of the State of Alabama." The question of jurisdiction was raised for the first time in this Court. Held that although greater care should have been exercised, by plaintiffs in the averments, the diverse citizenship of the parties appeared affirmatively and ...
Haley Vs. Breeze
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-21-1892
Haley v. Breeze - 144 U.S. 130 (1892) U.S. Supreme Court Haley v. Breeze, 144 U.S. 130 (1892) Haley v. Breeze No. 211 Submitted March 15, 1892 Decided March 21, 1892 144 U.S. 130 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF COLORADO Syllabus This writ of error is dismissed because the record presents no federal question properly raised, and because the judgment of the state court rests upon an independent ground, broad enough to maintain it, and involving no federal question. The plaintiff in error, as plaintiff below, filed a bill in a district court in a county in Colorado to restrain the collection of taxes which had been assessed against him. An injunction being refused, he filed a second bill, in another court in another county, seeking the same remedy. An injunction being issued there, the cause was taken to the supreme court of the state, where the decree was reversed and the injunction dissolved. The following extracts from the opinion of the court, found in the reco...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »