Court : US Supreme Court
Thompson v. Los Angeles Farming & Milling Co. - 180 U.S. 72 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Thompson v. Los Angeles Farming & Milling Co., 180 U.S. 72 (1901) Thompson v. Los Angeles Farming and Milling Company No. 87 Argued and submitted November 8, 1900 Decided January 7, 1901 180 U.S. 72 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus The papers offered in evidence in this case, instead of showing the nonexistence of special circumstances with reference to the sale to de Celis which authorized the governor to make it, affirm the existence of those circumstances, and the condition of the plaintiff in error is reduced to this dilemma: the papers being ruled out, the validity of the grant will be implied; the papers being ruled in, the validity of the grant will be shown. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. MR. JUSTICE McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an action of ejectment in which defendant in error was plaintiff in the court belo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Board of Liquidation of New Orleans v. Louisiana - 179 U.S. 622 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Board of Liquidation of New Orleans v. Louisiana, 179 U.S. 622 (1901) Board of Liquidation of New Orleans v. Louisiana Nos. 114, 119 Argued December 4-5, 1900 Decided January 7, 1901 179 U.S. 622 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA Syllabus Without implying that the reasoning of the state court by which the conclusion was reached that, under the statute of Louisiana, both the Board of Liquidation and the Drainage Commission occupied such a fiduciary relation as to empower them to assert that the enforcement of the provisions of the constitution of the state would impair the obligations of the contracts entered into on the faith of the collection and application of the one percent tax, and of the surplus arising therefrom, this Court adopts and follows it, as the construction put by the Supreme Court of the Louisiana on the statutes of that state, in a matter of local a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Ry. Co. v. Adams - 180 U.S. 1 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Ry. Co. v. Adams, 180 U.S. 1 (1901) Yazoo and Mississippi Valley Railway Company v. Adams, 180 U.S. 1 (1901) No. 36 Argued October 22-23, 1900 Decided January 7, 1901 180 U.S. 1 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Syllabus An action was begun in a state court for taxes. Defendants pleaded in bar, but did not set up a federal question. The case resulted in a judgment for a part of the taxes; was carried to the Supreme Curt which passed upon all the issues, reversed the judgment, and practically held that defendants were liable for all the taxes, and remanded the case for a new trial. Defendants then set up a federal question, which the court upon the new trial refused to consider, and the Supreme Court affirmed its action. Held that the federal question was "specially setup and claimed" too late to be available as a defense. As it appeared from ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Yazoo & Mississippi R. Co. v. Adams - 180 U.S. 41 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Yazoo & Mississippi R. Co. v. Adams, 180 U.S. 41 (1901) Yazoo and Mississippi Railroad Company v. Adams No. 89 Submitted October 22, 1900 Decided January 7, 1901 180 U.S. 41 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Syllabus A writ of error to the supreme court of a state cannot be sustained when the only question involved is the construction of a charter or contract, although it appear that there were statutes subsequent to such charter which might have been, but were not, relied upon as raising a federal question concerning the construction of the contract. If the sole question be whether the Supreme Court has properly interpreted the contract, and there be no question of subsequent legislative impairment, there is no federal question to be answered. The Court is not bound to search the statutes to find one which can be construed as impairing the obligation Page 180 U. S. 42 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Queen of the Pacific - 180 U.S. 49 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Queen of the Pacific, 180 U.S. 49 (1901) Queen of the Pacific No. 130 Argued and submitted December 14, 1900 Decided January 7, 1901. 180 U.S. 49 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus A stipulation in a bill of lading that all claims against a steamship company, or any of the stockholders of the company, for damage to merchandise must be presented to the company within thirty days from the date of the bill of lading applies though the suit be in rem against the steamship carrying the property covered by the bill of lading. In the view of the facts that the loss occurred the day after the bill of lading was signed and the shippers were notified of such loss within three days thereafter, the stipulation was a reasonable one, and a failure to present the claim within the time limited was held a bar to recovery against the company in personam or against the ship in rem. The r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Turner v. Richardson - 180 U.S. 87 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Turner v. Richardson, 180 U.S. 87 (1901) Turner v. Richardson No. 408 Submitted October 29, 1900 Decided January 7, 1901 180 U.S. 87 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA Syllabus It is again decided that, to render a federal question available on writ of error from a state court, it must have been raised in the case before judgment, and cannot be claimed for the first time in a petition for rehearing. This was a motion to dismiss or affirm. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court. Page 180 U. S. 88 MR. JUSTICE McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court. The commercial firm of M. Schwartz & Company, of the City of New Orleans, was indebted to the American National Bank of that city on the 5th of August, 1896, in the sum of $88,600.16. To secure this indebtedness, certain shares of the Schwartz Foundry Company and other securities were pledged to the bank. Schwartz & Company became insolv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co. v. Kearney - 180 U.S. 132 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co. v. Kearney, 180 U.S. 132 (1901) Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company v. Kearney No. 85 Submitted November 7, 1900 Decided January 7, 1901 180 U.S. 132 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The plaintiff in error insured the defendants in error against loss by fire by two policies, one dated in June, 1894, the other in February, 1895, each of which contained the following provision: "The assured under this policy hereby covenants and agrees to keep a set of books showing a complete record of business transacted, including all purchases and sales, both for cash and credit, together with the last inventory of said business, and further covenants and agrees to keep such books and inventory securely locked in a fireproof safe at night, and at all times when the store mentioned in the within policy is not actually...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Hewitt v. Schultz - 180 U.S. 139 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Hewitt v. Schultz, 180 U.S. 139 (1901) Hewitt v. Schultz No. 34 Argued October 15-16, 1900 Decided January 7, 1901 180 U.S. 139 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA Syllabus The controlling question in this case is whether it was competent for the Secretary of the Interior, upon receiving and approving of the map of the definite location of the Northern Pacific Railroad, to make the order of withdrawal stated by the court in its opinion in respect of the odd-numbered sections of land within the indemnity limits -- that is, of lands between the forty-mile and fifty-mile limits. In 1888, Secretary Vilas, in an elaborate opinion, held that the Northern Pacific Act forbade the Land Department to withdraw from the operation of the preemption and homestead laws any lands within the indemnity limits of the grant made by the Act of July 2, 1884, 13 Stat. 365, c. 217, and that, until a valid selection by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Southern Ry. Co. v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. - 179 U.S. 641 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Southern Ry. Co. v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co., 179 U.S. 641 (1901) Southern Railway Company v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Company No. 64 Argued November 2, 1900 Decided January 7, 1901 179 U.S. 641 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Luxton v. North River Bridge Company, 147 U. S. 337 , is decisive of the question raised in this case whether a final judgment or order has been entered by the circuit court which could be taken by writ of error to the circuit court of appeals. This Court has jurisdiction to examine the proceedings in the circuit court of appeals and to reverse its order if its ruling is found erroneous, or the reverse if its ruling was correct. This was a proceeding commenced by the Postal Telegraph-Cable Company (hereinafter called the telegraph company) against the Southern railway Company (hereinafter called the railway company) to acqu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Dooley v. Hadden - 179 U.S. 646 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Dooley v. Hadden, 179 U.S. 646 (1901) Dooley v. Hadden Nos. 96, 99 Argued November 9, 12, 1900 Decided January 7, 1901 179 U.S. 646 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus In July, 1895, Harold F. Hadden and James E. S. Hadden brought an action in the New York Supreme Court for the City and County of New York against the Natchaug Silk Company, Michael F. Dooley, personally and as receiver of the First National Bank of Willimantic, John A. Pangburn, and others, including William I. Buttling, Sheriff of Kings County. The complaint alleged certain fraudulent and collusive proceedings between the Natchaug Silk Company, Dooley, receiver of the First National Bank of Willimantic, and John A. Pangburn, and, under a prayer of the bill, an injunction pendente lite was granted restraining the Sheriff of Kings County from selling property of the silk company in his possession as sheriff upon ...
Tag this Judgment!