Us Supreme Court Court February 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.
United States Vs. Parkhurst-davis Mercantile Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-26-1900
United States v. Parkhurst-Davis Mercantile Co. - 176 U.S. 317 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Parkhurst-Davis Mercantile Co., 176 U.S. 317 (1900) United States v. Parkhurst-Davis Mercantile Company No. 180 Submitted January 31, 1900 Decided February 26, 1900 176 U.S. 317 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Syllabus This case comes within the provision of Rev.Stat. 720 to the effect that no writ of injunction shall be granted by a court of the United States to stay proceedings in any court of a state except in matters of bankruptcy. On August 21, 1897, the United States filed their bill in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas seeking an injunction restraining defendants from enforcing in the courts of the State of Kansas certain claims against Eli G. Nadeau and John Nadeau, members of the Page 176 U. S. 318 Prairie Band of Pottawatomie Indians, and residing on a reserve within the limits o...
United States Vs. Ortiz
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-26-1900
United States v. Ortiz - 176 U.S. 422 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Ortiz, 176 U.S. 422 (1900) United States v. Ortiz No. 20 Argued October 11, 1899 Decided February 26, 1900 176 U.S. 422 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF PRIVATE .LAND CLAIMS Syllabus In the hearing of an application for confirmation of an alleged Mexican grant the law casts primarily upon the applicant the duty of tendering such proof as to the existence, regularity and archive record of the grant, as well as his connection with it, such as possession, ownership and other related incidents, of sufficient probative force to create a just inference as to the reality and validity of the grant, before the burden of proof, if at all, can be shifted from the claimant to the United States. The surveyor general had authority to make a supplementary investigation, and the supplementary proceedings were properly admitted in evidence. The special qualifications of the witness Tipton, resulting from his great fa...
Thormann Vs. Frame
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-26-1900
Thormann v. Frame - 176 U.S. 350 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court Thormann v. Frame, 176 U.S. 350 (1900) Thormann v. Frame No. 841 Submitted January 22, 1900 Decided February 26, 1900 176 U.S. 350 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF WAUKESHA, STATE OF WISCONSIN Syllabus The bare appointment of an executor or administrator of a deceased person by the courts of one state cannot be held, on principle or authority, to foreclose inquiry as to the domicil of the deceased in the courts of another state. The general rule is that administration may be granted in any state or Territory where unadministered personal property of a deceased person is found, or real property subject to the claim of any creditor of the deceased. The constitutional provision that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the judicial proceedings in other states does not preclude inquiry into the jurisdiction of the court. in which the judgment is rendered, over the subject matter or the part...
Wright Vs. Columbus, H.V. and Athens R. Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-26-1900
Wright v. Columbus, H.V. & Athens R. Co. - 176 U.S. 481 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court Wright v. Columbus, H.V. & Athens R. Co., 176 U.S. 481 (1900) Wright v. Columbus, Hocking Valley and Athens Railroad Company No. 91 Submitted December 13, 1899 Decided February 26, 1900 176 U.S. 481 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OHIO Syllabus The federal question set up in the assignment of errors is precisely the same as the one set up in No. 90, ante, 176 U. S. 469 , and No. 92, ante, 176 U. S. 481 , and being the only one called to the attention of the court by counsel, those cases are followed in this. Page 176 U. S. 482 This was also a petition in the same court to enjoin the railroad company from entering upon or taking possession of the canal property and constructing a railroad thereon, but in certain particulars differs from the case already considered. Plaintiff averred that he is the owner in fee simple of a certain tract of land in the County of Hocking, throu...
The Panama
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-26-1900
The Panama - 176 U.S. 535 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court The Panama, 176 U.S. 535 (1900) The Panama No.127 Argued November 8, 1899 Decided February 26, 1900 176 U.S. 535 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Syllabus No general rule of international law exempts mail ships from capture as prize of war. A Spanish mail steamship, carrying mail of the United States from New York to Havana at the time of the breaking out of the recent war with Spain, was not exempt from capture by the sixth clause of the President's proclamation of April 26, 1898. Page 176 U. S. 536 At the time of the breaking out of the recent war with Spain, a Spanish mail steamship was on a voyage from New York to Havana, carrying a general cargo, passengers and mails, and having mounted on board two breech-loading Hontoria guns of nine centimeter bore, and one Maxim rapid-firing gun, and having also on board twenty Remington rifles and ten Mauser rifles, with ...
Adirondack Ry. Co. Vs. New York State
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-26-1900
Adirondack Ry. Co. v. New York State - 176 U.S. 335 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court Adirondack Ry. Co. v. New York State, 176 U.S. 335 (1900) Adirondack Railway Company v. New York State No. 489 Argued January 15-16, 1900 Decided February 26, 1900 176 U.S. 335 ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Syllabus While the legislative power to amend or repeal a statute cannot be availed of to take away property already acquired or to deprive a corporation of fruits of contracts lawfully made already reduced to possession, the capacity to acquire land by condemnation for the construction of a railroad attends the franchise to be a railroad corporation, and, when unexecuted, cannot be held to be, in itself, a vested right surviving the existence of the franchise or an authorized circumscription of its scope. The highest court of the New York having held that there is no property in a naked railroad route in that state which the state is obliged to pay for when it needs t...
United States Vs. Gue Lim
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-26-1900
United States v. Gue Lim - 176 U.S. 459 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Gue Lim, 176 U.S. 459 (1900) United States v. Gue Lim No. 128 Submitted January 29, 1900 Decided February 26, 1900 176 U.S. 459 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Syllabus Under the Act of July 6, 1884, c. 220, 23 Stat. 116, construed in connection with the treaty with China of November 17, 1880, 22 Stat. 826, the wives and minor children of Chinese merchants domiciled in this country, may enter the United States without certificates. Distinct appeals were taken direct to this Court from the judgment of the District Court of the United States for the District of Washington, Northern Division, in the case of the above defendant in error, Gue Lim, and from the judgment of the Western Division of that court in the cases of Ah Tong, Yee Yuen, and Ah Quong, under the fifth clause of the fifth section of the act creating the circuit court of appeals,...
Moss Vs. Dowman
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-26-1900
Moss v. Dowman - 176 U.S. 413 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court Moss v. Dowman, 176 U.S. 413 (1900) Moss v. Dowman No. 141 Argued and submitted January 31, February 1, 1900 Decided February 26, 1900 176 U.S. 413 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Decisions of the land department in contest cases on questions of fact are conclusive. Dowman went upon the public land in controversy, then unoccupied, on the 19th September, 1890, built a cabin and continued to live there. November 18, 1890, he made a formal homestead entry in the local land office, and after live years of continued occupancy and proof of the same, he received a patent. On May 7, 1890, one Doran made a homestead entry of the same land without occupying it, which he subsequently relinquished, Moss paying Page 176 U. S. 414 him $1,000 therefor, and thereupon Moss on the 24th of October, 1890, filed that relinquishment in the local land office, and made a homestead entry in her own n...
Maxwell Vs. Dow
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-26-1900
Maxwell v. Dow - 176 U.S. 581 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581 (1900) Maxwell v. Dow Argued December 4, 1899 Decided February 26, 1900 176 U.S. 581 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH Syllabus The decision In Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516 , that the words "due process of law " in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States do not necessarily require an indictment by a grand jury in a prosecution by a State for murder, has been often affirmed, and is now reaffirmed and applied to this case. The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal Government. The trial of a person accused as a criminal by a jury of only eight persons instead of twelve, and his subsequent imprisonment after conviction, do not abridge his privileges and immunities under the Constitu...
Florida Central and Peninsular R. Co. Vs. Bell
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-26-1900
Florida Central & Peninsular R. Co. v. Bell - 176 U.S. 321 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court Florida Central & Peninsular R. Co. v. Bell, 176 U.S. 321 (1900) Florida Central & Peninsular Railroad Company v. Bell No. 95 Argued and submitted December 22, 1899 Decided February 26, 1900 176 U.S. 321 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus As the plaintiff's in the circuit court claimed in their declaration that the controversy was one that turned on the construction of the laws of the United States, and as both courts below dealt with the case on that assumption, this Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment of the circuit court of appeals. As the plaintiffs, some of whom were citizens of Florida and some of whom were citizens of Texas, elected to assert a joint claim to land in Florida in dispute in this case, which was commenced before the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida, and carried by appeal to the United St...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »