Us Supreme Court Court March 1898 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.
United States Vs. Wong Kim Ark
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-28-1898
United States v. Wong Kim Ark - 169 U.S. 649 (1898) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) United States v. Wong Kim Ark No. 18 Argued March 5, 8, 1897 Decided March 28, 1898 169 U.S. 649 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, "All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This was a writ of habeas corp...
Louisville and Nashville R. Co. Vs. Behlmer
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-28-1898
Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Behlmer - 169 U.S. 644 (1898) U.S. Supreme Court Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Behlmer, 169 U.S. 644 (1898) Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Behlmer No. 585 Submitted March 14, 1898 Decided March 28, 1898 169 U.S. 644 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The provision in 16 of the Act of February 4, 1887, as amended by the Act of March 2, 1883, c. 382, that appeals from judgments of circuit courts in such cases to this Court shall not operate to stay or supersede the order of the court or the execution of any writ or process thereon, does not refer to an appeal from a judgment of a circuit court of appeals to this Court, and such an appeal to this Court from such a judgment of a circuit court of appeals operates as a supersedeas. The case is stated in the opinion. Page 169 U. S. 645 MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the Court. Henry W. Behlmer filed a petition before the I...
United States Ex Rel. BernardIn Vs. Butterworth
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-21-1898
United States ex Rel. Bernardin v. Butterworth - 169 U.S. 600 (1898) U.S. Supreme Court United States ex Rel. Bernardin v. Butterworth, 169 U.S. 600 (1898) United States ex Rel. Bernardin v. Butterworth No. 403 Submitted February 21, 1898 Decided March 21, 1898 169 U.S. 600 ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus A suit to compel the Commissioner of Patents to issue a patent abates by the death of the Commissioner, and cannot be revived so as to bring in his successor, although the latter gives his consent. The Act of Maryland of 1785, c. 80, is not applicable to such a case. Page 169 U. S. 601 This was a motion to substitute Mr. Duell, Commissioner of Patents as defendant in the place of Mr. Butterworth, Commissioner, deceased. The case is stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE SHIRAS delivered the opinion of the Court. On March 23, 1895, John S. Seymour, Commissioner of Patents, on appeal in an interference proceeding between the applications o...
Wilson Vs. North Carolina
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-21-1898
Wilson v. North Carolina - 169 U.S. 586 (1898) U.S. Supreme Court Wilson v. North Carolina, 169 U.S. 586 (1898) Wilson v. North Carolina No. 558 Submitted January 17, 1898 Decided March 21, 1898 169 U.S. 586 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Syllabus Chapter 320 of the Laws of North Carolina of 1891 was a valid law, and the action of the Governor of the state under it in suspending the plaintiff in error as Railroad Commissioner, appointed under it, was, as construed by the Supreme Court of that state, a valid exercise of the power conferred upon the Governor by that act, and was due process of law, within the meaning of the Constitution. The federal question which is attempted to be raised in this case is unfounded in substance, and does not really exist. The judgment of the state court in this case operated of itself to remove the plaintiff in error from the office of Railroad Commissioner, and there is no foundation in the evidence for the alleg...
Mccormick Harvesting Machine Co. Vs. Aultman
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-21-1898
McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Aultman - 169 U.S. 606 (1898) U.S. Supreme Court McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Aultman, 169 U.S. 606 (1898) McCormick Harvesting Machine Company v. Aultman Nos. 180, 181 Argued December 1-2, 1897 Decided March 21, 1898 169 U.S. 606 CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Syllabus If the owner of a patent applies to the Patent Office for a reissue of it and includes, among the claims in the application, the same claims as those which were included in the old patent, and the primary examiner rejects some of such claims.for want of patentable novelty, by reference to prior patents, and allows others, both old and new, the owner of the patent does not, by taking no appeal and by abandoning his application for reissue, hold the original patent (the return of which he procures from the Patent Office) invalidated as to those of its claims which were disallowed for want of patentable novelty by the primary examin...
Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Co. Vs. Haber
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-14-1898
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Haber - 169 U.S. 613 (1898) U.S. Supreme Court Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Haber, 169 U.S. 613 (1898) Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company v. Haber No. 268 Argued January 27, 1898 Decided March 14, 1898 169 U.S. 613 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS Syllabus The Act of Kansas of 1891, c. 201, as amended and as it appears in 2 Gen.Stats.Kansas, 1897, 761, c. 139, relating to bringing into the state cattle liable or capable of communicating Texas, splenic, or Spanish fever to any domestic cattle of the state and providing for the trial of civil actions brought to recover damages therefor, is not overridden by the Act of Congress of March 19, 1884, 23 Stat. 31, c. 60, known as the Animal Industry Act, nor by the Act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 1044, 1049, c. 544, appropriating money to carry out the provisions of the above act, nor by section 5258 of the Revised Statutes, authorizing every railroad compan...
Merritt Vs. BowdoIn College
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-14-1898
Merritt v. Bowdoin College - 169 U.S. 551 (1898) U.S. Supreme Court Merritt v. Bowdoin College, 169 U.S. 551 (1898) Merritt v. Bowdoin College No. 505 Submitted January 31, 1898 Decided March 14, 1898 169 U.S. 551 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus An appeal does not lie to this Court from the decision of a circuit court in which, after overruling, on the facts, a plea by the defendant that the action was not in truth a controversy between citizens of different states, but solely between citizens of one state, to whom other parties were collusively added for the purpose of giving the circuit court jurisdiction, the court then rendered a final judgment in favor of the plaintiff's on the merits. While such an issue involves the jurisdiction of the circuit court, it does not involve or require, within the meaning of the Act of March 8, 1891, c. 517, either the construction or application of the Constitution. Th...
Smyth Vs. Ames
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-07-1898
Smyth v. Ames - 169 U.S. 466 (1898) U.S. Supreme Court Smyth v. Ames, 169 U.S. 466 (1898) Smyth v. Ames Nos. 49-51 Argued April 5-7, 1897 Decided March 7, 1898 169 U.S. 466 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA Syllabus The adequacy or inadequacy of a remedy at law for the protection of the rights of one entitled upon any ground to invoke the powers of a federal court is not to be conclusively determined by the statutes of the particular state in which suit may be brought. One who is entitled to sue in the federal circuit court may invoke its jurisdiction in equity whenever the established principles and rules of equity permit such a suit in that court, and he cannot be deprived of that right by reason of his being allowed to sue at law in a state court on the same cause of action. A suit against individuals for the purpose of preventing them as officers of a state from enforcing an unconstitutional enactment to the injury of the ...
Central National Bank Vs. Stevens
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-07-1898
Central National Bank v. Stevens - 169 U.S. 432 (1898) U.S. Supreme Court Central National Bank v. Stevens, 169 U.S. 432 (1898) Central National Bank v. Stevens No. 38 Argued October 15, 1897 Decided March 7, 1898 169 U.S. 432 ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Syllabus In August, 1880, Sackett brought suit in the Supreme Court of the New York on behalf of himself and all other holders and owners of bonds of certain railroad companies against Root, the Harlem Extension Railroad South Coal Transportation Company, the New York, Boston and Montreal Railway Company, and David Butterfield, receiver of said company, praying for the appointment of a receiver and for a sale of the railroad and franchises for the benefit of the bondholders. On October 11, 1880, a receiver was appointed and qualified. On April 2, 1881, on petition of the receiver and after a report by an expert disclosing the necessity for expenditure to make the road safe and to enable trains to ...
Savings and Loan Society Vs. Multnomah County
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-07-1898
Savings & Loan Society v. Multnomah County - 169 U.S. 421 (1898) U.S. Supreme Court Savings & Loan Society v. Multnomah County, 169 U.S. 421 (1898) Savings and Loan Society v. Multnomah County No. 69 Argued October 29, 1897 Decided March 7, 1898 169 U.S. 421 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON Syllabus The statute of Oregon of October 26, 1882, taxing mortgages of lands in that state to the mortgagees in the county where the land lies, does not, as applied to mortgages owned by citizens of other states and in their possession outside of the Oregon, contravene the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The case is stated in the opinion. Page 169 U. S. 422 MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court. This was a bill in equity filed in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Oregon by the Savings & Loan Society, a corporation and citizen of the State of California, against Multnoma...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »