Us Supreme Court Court October 1894 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.
New York Vs. Eno
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Oct-29-1894
New York v. Eno - 155 U.S. 89 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court New York v. Eno, 155 U.S. 89 (1894) New York v. Eno No. 602 Argued and submitted October 17, 1894 Decided October 29, 1894 155 U.S. 89 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus Whether an offense described in an indictment in a state court is an offense against the laws of that state and punishable thereunder, or whether it is made by federal statutes an offense against the United States, exclusively cognizable by their courts, and whether the same act may be an offense against both national and state governments, punishable in the tribunals of each without infringing upon the constitutional guaranty against being twice put in jeopardy of limb for the same offense, are questions which a state court of original jurisdiction is competent to decide in the first instance, and (its obligation to render such decision as will give full effect to the supreme law of the la...
Sipperley Vs. Smith
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Oct-29-1894
Sipperley v. Smith - 155 U.S. 86 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court Sipperley v. Smith, 155 U.S. 86 (1894) Sipperley v. Smith No. 888 Submitted October 15, 1894 Decided October 29, 1894 155 U.S. 86 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF UTAH Syllabus The rule reiterated that where a judgment or decree is joint, all the parties against whom it is rendered must join in the writ of error or appeal, unless there be summons and severance or the equivalent. Motion to dismiss or affirm. The court stated the case as follows: A. F. Sipperley and H. S. Lee, composing a partnership under the firm name of A. F. Sipperley & Co., doing business in the City of Salt Lake, Utah, made an assignment of their partnership Page 155 U. S. 87 property to one Ross, in trust to convert the same into money, and pay creditors in the order named -- First, M. J. Gray and the Union Bank of Greeley, Colorado, in full; second, Mrs. A. F. Sipperley, Mrs. E. J. Walling, and H. A. Lee, certain individua...
Pepke Vs. Cronan
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Oct-29-1894
Pepke v. Cronan - 155 U.S. 100 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court Pepke v. Cronan, 155 U.S. 100 (1894) Pepke v. Cronan No. 641 Argued October 22, 1894 Decided October 29, 1894 155 U.S. 100 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA Syllabus P., being adjudged guilty of contempt by a state court, and sentenced to fine and imprisonment therefor, applied to the District Court of the United States for a writ of habeas corpus upon the ground that the statute of the state under which the proceedings took place of which his conviction and punishment for contempt formed a part were in contravention of the Constitutions of the United States and of the state. The district judge discharged the writ and remanded the petition. It was conceded that the validity of the proceedings in the state court could have been tested by the supreme court of the state on certiorari or habeas corpus, and no reason appeared why a writ of error could not have been applied...
Greeley Vs. Lowe
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Oct-29-1894
Greeley v. Lowe - 155 U.S. 58 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court Greeley v. Lowe, 155 U.S. 58 (1894) Greeley v. Lowe No. 517 Submitted April 30, 1894 Decided October 29, 1894 155 U.S. 58 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Syllabus A suit in equity for the partition of land, wherein the plaintiff avers that he is seized as tenant in common of an estate in fee simple and is in actual possession of the land described, and, after setting forth the interests of the other tenants in common, and alleging that no remedy at law exists to enable him to obtain his share of said lands in kind, or of the proceeds if sold, and that he is wholly without remedy except in chancery, prays for the partition of the land and the segregation of his own share from that of the others, and incidentally that certain deeds may be construed and, if invalid, may be cancelled, and that he may recover his advances for taxes and expenses, is clearly a bill to en...
Lewis Vs. Pima County
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Oct-29-1894
Lewis v. Pima County - 155 U.S. 54 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court Lewis v. Pima County, 155 U.S. 54 (1894) Lewis v. Pima County No. 550 Submitted October 17, 1894 Decided October 29, 1894 155 U.S. 54 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA Syllabus The Act of the legislature of Arizona of February 21, 1883, authorizing Pima County in that territory to issue its bonds in aid of the construction of a railway, is a violation of the restrictions imposed upon territorial legislatures by Rev.Stat. § 1889, as amended by the Act of June 8, 1878, c. 168, and the bonds issued under the authority assumed to be conferred by that statute created no obligation against the county which a court of law can enforce. This was an action originally begun in the District Court of the first Judicial District of Arizona upon 2,250 coupons Page 155 U. S. 55 attached to 150 bonds, issued by the defendant county July 1, 1883, and payable to the Arizona Narrow Gauge Railroad Compa...
United States Vs. Coe
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Oct-29-1894
United States v. Coe - 155 U.S. 76 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Coe, 155 U.S. 76 (1894) United States v. Coe No. 591 Submitted October 9, 1894 Decided October 29, 1894 155 U.S. 76 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS Syllabus The provisions in the Act of March 3, 1891, c. 539, 26 Stat. 854, "to establish a Court of Private Land Claims and to provide for the settlement of private land claims in certain states and territories," authorizing this Court to amend the proceedings of the court below and to cause additional testimony to be taken, are not mandatory, but only empower the Court to direct further proofs and to amend the record if in its judgment the case demands its interposition to that effect. The judicial action of all inferior courts established by Congress may, in accordance with the Constitution, be subjected to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States. An appeal lies to this Court from a judgment of the Court of...
Wright Vs. Yuengling
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Oct-22-1894
Wright v. Yuengling - 155 U.S. 47 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court Wright v. Yuengling, 155 U.S. 47 (1894) Wright v. Yuengling No. 1 Argued October 9, 1894 Decided October 22, 1894 155 U.S. 47 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus Whether there was any novelty in the first claim in letters patent No. 144,818, issued November 18, 1873, to William Wright for an improvement in frames for horizontal engines, quaere. Inasmuch as the semicircular connecting piece in that patented machine is described by the inventor as an essential feature of his invention and is made an element of claims 1 and 2, it must be regarded as such essential feature, and a device which dispenses with it does not infringe the patent. When an invention is not a pioneer invention, the inventor is held to a rigid construction of his claims. The second claim in the said patent is void for want of patentable novelty. The combination of the cylindrical g...
Robb Vs. Vos
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Oct-15-1894
Robb v. Vos - 155 U.S. 13 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court Robb v. Vos, 155 U.S. 13 (1894) Robb v. Vos No. 38 Argued March 7, 1894 Decided October 15, 1894 155 U.S. 13 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Syllabus When an attorney at law appears, without the knowledge or consent of his principal, on behalf of a defendant of record in an action at law of the existence of which the principal is ignorant, and consents to judgment and the issue of execution and the sale of the party's interest in real estate thereunder, and such sale is made, all the proceedings being regular on their face, the remedy of the injured party, when the facts come to his knowledge, is in equity. A circuit court of the United States has jurisdiction of such a suit in equity, if the citizenship of the parties permits, although the proceedings at law under which the sale was made were had in a state court. When a party has two remedies, inconsistent with each ...
Talbert Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Oct-15-1894
Talbert v. United States - 155 U.S. 45 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court Talbert v. United States, 155 U.S. 45 (1895) Talbert v. United States Nos. 24, 25 Argued and submitted October 11-12, 1894 Decided October 15, 1894 155 U.S. 45 APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus A finding of fact by the Court of Claims, where there is nothing in the other findings or elsewhere in the record which authorizes this Court to go behind that finding and conclude that there was error in respect thereof, will not be reviewed here. The two causes were argued together.The case is stated in the opinion. Page 155 U. S. 46 MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER. This was a suit brought in the Court of Claims under an act of Congress entitled "An act for the relief of William Talbert," approved June 30, 1886, and reading as follows: "That the claim of William Talbert, of Montgomery County, Maryland, for the use by the government of his patented improvement for marine railways, be, and the same is hereby, refer...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›