Us Supreme Court Court December 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.
Bobb Vs. Jamison
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-17-1894
Bobb v. Jamison - 155 U.S. 416 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court Bobb v. Jamison, 155 U.S. 416 (1894) Bobb v. Jamison No. 267 Submitted December 10, 1894 Decided December 17, 1894 155 U.S. 416 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI Syllabus Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U. S. 377 , affirmed and followed. Motion to dismiss. This cause, after trial below, was argued before the Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2, en banc. The organization of that court is set forth in the statement of facts in Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U. S. 377 . After the court had given its opinion and announced its judgment, the plaintiffs in error for the first time raised a federal question in the cause in a motion for a rehearing. That motion being denied, the case was brought here by writ of error, which writ the defendants in error moved to dismiss. Page 155 U. S. 417 THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The writ of error is dismissed on the authority of Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U. S. 377 , and cases ci...
Postal Telegraph Cable Co. Vs. Alabama
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-17-1894
Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Alabama - 155 U.S. 482 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482 (1894) Postal Telegraph Cable Company v. Alabama No. 702 Submitted November 19, 1894 Decided December 17, 1894 155 U.S. 482 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA Syllabus Under the Judiciary Acts of the United States, a suit taken between a state and a citizen or corporation of another state is not a suit between citizens of different states, and the circuit court of the United States has no jurisdiction of it unless it arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Under the acts of March 3, 1887, c. 373, and August 13, 1888, c. 866, a case (not depending on the "citizenship of the parties, nor otherwise specially provided for) cannot be removed from a state court into the circuit court of the United States as one arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the Unite...
Dick Vs. Foraker
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-17-1894
Dick v. Foraker - 155 U.S. 404 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court Dick v. Foraker, 155 U.S. 404 (1894) Dick v. Foraker No. 89 Submitted November 15, 1894 Decided December 17, 1894 155 U.S. 404 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Syllabus The Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas has jurisdiction of a suit in equity, brought by a citizen of Ohio against a citizen of Illinois, to remove a cloud from the title to real estate situated in that district. Without the statutory notice required by the Arkansas statute of March 12, 1881, No. 39, in proceedings for the fixing of tax liens for unpaid taxes upon lands in the state, and the sale of the lands for the nonpayment thereof, the court can take no jurisdiction, and all proceedings therein are void, and the fact that the state appeared in such a suit where that notice had not been given did not give the court jurisdiction, or render the sale valid. Ac...
ingraham Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-17-1894
Ingraham v. United States - 155 U.S. 434 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court Ingraham v. United States, 155 U.S. 434 (1894) Ingraham v. United States No. 379 Submitted October 23, 1894 Decided December 17, 1894 155 U.S. 434 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND Syllabus Pointer v. United States, 151 U. S. 396 , sustained and applied to the point that it is not error to join distinct offenses in one indictment, in separate counts, against the same person. A person who presents to the Third Auditor of the Treasury what purports to be an affidavit before a justice of the peace in support of a fraudulent claim against the government is estopped to deny that the document was not an affidavit when presented in evidence in criminal proceedings against him for such fraudulent act. It is not necessary in the first instance, in order to prove such offense, to produce the commission of the justice or to introduce other official evidence of his appo...
Swan Vs. Hill
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-17-1894
Swan v. Hill - 155 U.S. 394 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court Swan v. Hill, 155 U.S. 394 (1894) Swan v. Hill No. 101 Submitted December 4, 1894 Decided December 17, 1894 155 U.S. 394 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA Syllabus It was not error in the Supreme Court of the Territory of Arizona to dismiss an appeal when the appeal bond was without obligees, and not conditioned according to law. This was an action brought by John Hill, A. B. Wild, S.B. Curtis, and Samuel Summers, in the District Court of Cochise county, against H. C. Herrick and others, including the Boston Mining and Reduction Company, to establish plaintiffs' alleged prior right to the use of the waters of the San Pedro River for irrigation purposes and to restrain defendants in respect thereof. The defendant company having, previously to the commencement of the action, conveyed its property to Swan, trustee, the latter was made a defendant, as were numerous others averred to be interested in ...
AustIn Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-17-1894
Austin v. United States - 155 U.S. 417 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court Austin v. United States, 155 U.S. 417 (1894) Austin v. United States No. 39 Argued October 26, 1894 Decided December 17, 1894 155 U.S. 417 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus The Act of March 3, 1883,c. 111, 22 Stat. 804, authorizing the Court of Claims to hear and determine the claims of the successors and representatives of Sterling T. Austin, deceased, for cotton alleged to have been taken from him in Louisiana by the authorities of the United States in 1863, 1864, and 1865, "any statute of limitation to the contrary notwithstanding, provided, however, that it be shown to the satisfaction of the court that neither Sterling T. Austin, Senior nor any of his surviving representatives gave any aid or comfort to the late rebellion, but were throughout the war loyal to the government of the United States," made the establishment of loyalty in fact, as contradistinguished from innocence in law produced by pa...
Linford Vs. Ellison
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-17-1894
Linford v. Ellison - 155 U.S. 503 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court Linford v. Ellison, 155 U.S. 503 (1894) Linford v. Ellison No. 90 Submitted November 22, 1894 Decided December 17, 1894 155 U.S. 503 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF UTAH Syllabus A judgment of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah against the tax collector of a municipal corporation for fifty dollars, the value of property levied on by him for unpaid municipal taxes, rendered on the ground that a municipal corporation, which is a small village but has extensive limits, cannot tax farming lands for municipal purposes lying within the corporate limits but outside of the platted portion of the city and so far removed from the settled portion thereof that the owner would receive no benefits from the municipal government, does not draw in question the validity of the organic law of the territory or the scope of the authority to legislate conferred upon the territorial legislature by Congress, and ...
Horne Vs. George H. Hammond Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-17-1894
Horne v. George H. Hammond Co. - 155 U.S. 393 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court Horne v. George H. Hammond Co., 155 U.S. 393 (1894) Horne v. George H. Hammond Company No. 86 Argued November 20-21, 1894 Decided December 17, 1894 155 U.S. 393 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus When the transcript of the record does not show that the circuit court had jurisdiction of a suit, where jurisdiction depends upon citizenship, and counsel, upon their attention's being called to the matter, furnish nothing of record to supply the defect, the judgment must be reversed at the costs of the plaintiff in error, and the cause remanded to the Circuit Court for further proceedings. The case is stated in the opinion. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER. The title of this cause describes plaintiff in error as "of Chelsea, in said district," and the decedent as "late of Chelsea," and the defendant as "a corporation organized under the laws of the State of M...
East Lake Land Co. Vs. Brown
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-17-1894
East Lake Land Co. v. Brown - 155 U.S. 488 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court East Lake Land Co. v. Brown, 155 U.S. 488 (1894) East Lake Land Co. v. Brown No. 121 Submitted December 14, 1894 Decided December 17, 1894 155 U.S. 488 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE a NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA Syllabus Chappell v. Waterworth, 155 U. S. 102 , affirmed and applied to the point that, under the Acts of March 3, 1887, c. 373, and August 13, 1888, c. 866, a case (not depending on the citizenship of the parties, nor otherwise specially provided for) cannot be removed from a state court into the circuit court of the United States as one arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States unless that appears by the plaintiff's statement of his own claim, and if it does not so appear, the want cannot be supplied by any statement in the petition for removal, or in the subsequent pleadings. This action was commenced in the City Court of Birmingham, Al...
In Re Rice, Petitioner
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-17-1894
In re Rice, Petitioner - 155 U.S. 396 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court In re Rice, Petitioner, 155 U.S. 396 (1894) In re Rice, Petitioner No number Submitted December 3, 1894 Decided December 17, 1894 155 U.S. 396 ORIGINAL Syllabus A party is entitled to a writ of prohibition as a matter of right where it appears that the court whose action is sought to be prohibited had clearly no jurisdiction of the cause originally, or of some collateral matter arising therein, and that he objected to the jurisdiction at the outset, and has no other remedy. But where there is another remedy, by appeal or otherwise, or where the question of the jurisdiction of the court is doubtful or depends on facts which are not made matter of record, or where the application is made by a stranger, the granting or refusal of the writ is discretionary, and it is not obligatory where the case has gone to sentence and the want of jurisdiction does not appear on the face of the proceedings. A writ of mandamus ca...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »