Us Supreme Court Court October 1900 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.
Good Shot Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Oct-29-1900
Good Shot v. United States - 179 U.S. 87 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court Good Shot v. United States, 179 U.S. 87 (1900) Good Shot v. United States No. 447 Submitted October 22, 1900 Decided October 29, 1900 179 U.S. 87 CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus A circuit court of appeals has no jurisdiction to review upon writ of error the trial, judgment and sentence of an Indian to imprisonment for life founded upon a verdict rendered on a trial of an indictment of the Indian for murder by which verdict the jury find the defendant "guilty as charged in the indictment, without capital punishment." The case is stated in the opinion. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the Court. Good Shot, an Indian, was indicted in the District Court of the United States for the district of South Dakota for the murder of Emily Good Shot, and, the indictment having been remitted by the circuit court, was arraigned and pleaded not guilty, was tri...
Sigafus Vs. Porter
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Oct-29-1900
Sigafus v. Porter - 179 U.S. 116 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court Sigafus v. Porter, 179 U.S. 116 (1900) Sigafus v. Porter No. 8 Argued November 15-16, 1899 Decided October 29, 1900 179 U.S. 116 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus The defendant in the court below moved to dismiss this case on the ground that the contract in relation to the property in question was with Griffith alone, and, that motion being denied, proceeded to offer evidence. Held that he could not assign the refusal to dismiss as error. In Smith v. Bolles, 132 U. S. 125 , it was held that "in an action in the nature of an action on the case to recover from the defendant damages which the plaintiff has suffered by reason of the purchase of stock in a corporation which he was induced to purchase on the faith of false and fraudulent representations made to him by the defendant, the measure of damages is the loss which the plaintiff sustained by reason of those represent...
Compagnie Francaise Andc.; Vs. Board of Health
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Oct-29-1900
Compagnie Francaise &c.; v. Board of Health - 186 U.S. 380 (1902) U.S. Supreme Court Compagnie Francaise &c.; v. Board of Health, 186 U.S. 380 (1902) Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana State Board of Health No. 4 Argued October 29-30, 1900 Affirmed June 2, 1902 186 U.S. 380 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA Syllabus The law of Louisiana under which the Board of Health exerted the authority complained of in this case is found in section 8 of Act 192 of 1898. The Supreme Court of Louisiana, interpreting this statute, held that it empowered the board to exclude healthy persons from a locality infested with a contagious or infectious disease, and that this power was intended to apply as well to persons seeking to enter the infected place, whether they came from without or within the state. Held: that this empowered the hoard to exclude healthy persons from a locality infested with a contagious or infectious disease, and that the power ...
Sully Vs. American National Bank
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Oct-22-1900
Sully v. American National Bank - 179 U.S. 68 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court Sully v. American National Bank, 179 U.S. 68 (1900) Sully v. American National Bank No. 266 of October Term, 1899 Submitted October 9, 1900 Decided October 22, 1900 179 U.S. 68 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE Syllabus For reasons stated in the opinion of the Court a motion to retax costs in this case is granted, and the costs modified accordingly. This was a motion to retax the costs in this case. MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM delivered the opinion of the Court. This is in substance a motion to retax costs in this case. Upon the day of the final adjournment of the Court, May 28, 1900, the cause was decided, and a decree entered reversing the judgment of the Supreme Court of Tennessee as to the plaintiff in error Carhart, who was one of several plaintiffs in error, with costs to be paid by the American National Bank. Subsequently to the adjournment, all the costs of this Court were taxed a...
Hubbell Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Oct-22-1900
Hubbell v. United States - 179 U.S. 77 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court Hubbell v. United States, 179 U.S. 77 (1900) Hubbell v. United States No. 19 Argued January 9-10, 1899 Decided October 22, 1900 179 U.S. 77 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus An examination of the history of the appellant's claim shows that, in order to get his patent, he was compelled to accept one with a narrower claim than that contained in his original application, and it is well settled that the claim as allowed must be read and interpreted with reference to the rejected claim and to the prior state of the art, and cannot be so construed as to cover either what was rejected by the Patent Office or disclosed by prior devices. This Court concurs with the court below in holding that the cartridges made and used by the United States were not within the description contained in the appellant's claim. On December 28, 1878, William Wheeler Hubbell filed in the United States Patent Office an application fo...
Oregon Railroad and Navigation Co. Vs. Balfour
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Oct-22-1900
Oregon Railroad & Navigation Co. v. Balfour - 179 U.S. 55 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court Oregon Railroad & Navigation Co. v. Balfour, 179 U.S. 55 (1900) Oregon Railroad and Navigation Co. v. Balfour Nos. 73-74 Submitted October 9, 1900 Decided October 22, 1900 179 U.S. 55 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Proceedings to limit the liability of ship owners are admiralty cases; the decrees of the Circuit Courts of Appeal therein are made final by the sixth section of the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1891, and appeals to this Court therefrom will not lie. Motion to dismiss. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the Court. These were petitions for a limitation of liability of shipowners, filed in the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon, sitting in admiralty, which proceeded to decree in that court. From this decree appeals were prosecuted to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, ...
Knott Vs. Botany Mills
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Oct-22-1900
Knott v. Botany Mills - 179 U.S. 69 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court Knott v. Botany Mills, 179 U.S. 69 (1900) Knott v. Botany Mills No. 5 Argued October 12-13, 1899 Decided October 22, 1900 179 U.S. 69 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Bales of wool were stowed on a steamship, with proper dunnage, between decks and forward of a temporary wooden bulkhead. At a subsequent port, wet sugar (from which there is always drainage) was stowed aft of that bulkhead, with proper dunnage but without any provision for carrying off the drainage in case it ran forward. The ship was then down by the stern, and all drainage from the sugar was carried off by the scuppers. At a third port, other cargo was discharged, so as to trim the vessel two feet by the head, and the drainage from the sugar found its way through the bulkhead and damaged the wool through negligence of those in charge of the ship and cargo. Held: that the damage to the wool was through fa...
Saxlehner Vs. Eisner and Mendelson Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Oct-16-1900
Saxlehner v. Eisner & Mendelson Co. - 179 U.S. 19 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court Saxlehner v. Eisner & Mendelson Co., 179 U.S. 19 (1900) Saxlehner v. Eisner & Mendelson Company No. 29 Argued March 22-23, 1900 Decided October 16, 1900 179 U.S. 19 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus In 1862, plaintiff's husband discovered a spring of bitter water in Hungary, and was granted by the Municipal Council of Buda permission to sell such water, and to give the spring the name of "Hunyadi Spring." He put up these waters in bottles of a certain shape and with a peculiar label, and opened a large trade in the same under the name of "Hunyadi Janos." In 1872, one Markus discovered a spring of similar water and petitioned the Council of Buda for permission to sell the water under the name of " Hunyadi Matyas." This was denied upon the protest of Saxlehner, but in 1873, the action of the Council was reversed by the Minister of Agriculture, and permission gi...
Saxlehner Vs. Siegel-cooper Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Oct-16-1900
Saxlehner v. Siegel-Cooper Co. - 179 U.S. 42 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court Saxlehner v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 179 U.S. 42 (1900) Saxlehner v. Siegel-Cooper Company Nos. 30-32 Argued March 22-23, 1900 Decided October 16, 1900 179 U.S. 42 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus These cases were argued with No. 29, ante, 179 U. S. 40 . The answer in them was substantially the same as in that case, and the same record of proofs was used. Held that an injunction should issue against all the defendants, but as the Siegel-Cooper Company acted in good faith it should not be required to account for gains and profits. The case is stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE BROWN delivered the opinion of the Court. These three cases were brought against retail dealers, and defended by the Eisner & Mendelson Company, who imported and furnished the defendants with the water sold by them. The bills charged the defendants generally with unlawfully selling bitter...
Wiley Vs. Sinkler
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Oct-15-1900
Wiley v. Sinkler - 179 U.S. 58 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U.S. 58 (1900) Wiley v. Sinkler No. 2 Argued December 8, 1899 Decided October 15, 1900 179 U.S. 58 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Syllabus The right to vote for members of Congress is not derived merely from the constitution and laws of the state in which they are chosen, but has its foundation in the Constitution and laws of the United States. The circuit court of the United States has jurisdiction of an action brought against election officers of a state to recover damages, alleged to exceed the sum of $2,000, for refusing the plaintiff's vote for a member of Congress. In an action against election officers of the State of South Carolina for refusing the plaintiff's vote at an election, the declaration must allege that the plaintiff was a registered voter, as is required by the constitution and laws of the state. This was an action brought ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »