Court : US Supreme Court
Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co. - 183 U.S. 79 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co., 183 U.S. 79 (1901) Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Company No. 1 Argued November 14-15, 1899 Reargued, January 23-24, 1901, before a full bench. Decided November 25, 1901 183 U.S. 79 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Syllabus The statute of Kansas of March 3, 1897, entitled "An act defining what shall constitute public stockyards, defining the duties of the person or persons operating the same, and regulating all charges thereof, and removing restrictions in the trade of dead animals, and providing penalties for violations of this act" is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States in that it applies only to the Kansas City Stock Yards Company, and not to other companies or corporations engaged in like business in Kansas, and thereby denies to that company the equal prot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Gulf & Ship Island R. Co. v. Hewes - 183 U.S. 66 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Gulf & Ship Island R. Co. v. Hewes, 183 U.S. 66 (1901) Gulf and Ship Island Railroad Company v. Hewes No. 5 Argued October 15-16, 1901 Decided November 18, 1901 183 U.S. 66 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Syllabus Although the certificate of the chief justice of a state supreme court that a federal question was raised is insufficient to give this Court jurisdiction, where such question does not appear in the record, it may be resorted to, in the absence of an opinion, to show that a federal question, which is otherwise raised in the record, was actually passed upon by the court. A charter of a railroad company incorporated by an act of the legislature of Mississippi passed in 1882 contained an exemption from all taxation for twenty years. The state constitution adopted in 1889 provided that the property of all corporations for pecuniary profit should be subject to taxation the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Dinsmore v. Southern Express Co. - 183 U.S. 115 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Dinsmore v. Southern Express Co., 183 U.S. 115 (1901) Dinsmore v. Southern Express Company No. 136 Argued February 25, 1901 Decided November 18, 1901 183 U.S. 115 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus This suit was brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Georgia, by citizens of New York against the Southern Express Company, a corporation of Georgia, and the Railroad Commission of that state, to prevent the company from applying any of its moneys to meet the requirements of the War Revenue Act of June 13, 1898, in relation to adhesive stamps to be placed on bills of lading, etc. The circuit court having enjoined the commission from proceedings, appeal was taken to the circuit court of appeals, which reversed that decree, and ordered the case to be dismissed. The case was then brought to this Court and submitted here on February ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Mitchell v. Potomac Ins. Co. - 183 U.S. 42 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Mitchell v. Potomac Ins. Co., 183 U.S. 42 (1901) Mitchell v. Potomac Insurance Company No. 51 Argued October 23-24, 1901 Decided November 11, 1901 183 U.S. 42 ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus The Potomac Company insured Mitchell in a sum not exceeding five thousand dollars on his stock of stoves and their findings, tins and tinware, tools of trade, etc., kept for sale in a first-class retail stove and tin store in Georgetown, D.C., with a privilege granted to keep not more than five barrels of gasoline or other oil or vapor. The policy also contained the following provisions: "It being covenanted as conditions of this contract that this company . . . shall not be liable . . . for loss caused by lightning or explosions of any kind unless fire ensues, and then for the loss or damage by fire only. . . . Or if gunpowder, phosphorus, naphtha, benzine, or crude earth or coal oi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Commissioners - 183 U.S. 53 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Commissioners, 183 U.S. 53 (1901) Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company v. Missouri Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners No. 11 Argued and submitted October 16, 1901 Decided November 11, 1901 183 U.S. 53 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI Syllabus When a state court refuses permission to remove to a federal court a case pending before the state court, and the federal court orders its removal, this Court has jurisdiction to determine whether there was error on the part of the state court in retaining the case. The plaintiffs were citizens of the Missouri, in which this action was brought. The railway company was a citizen of the Kansas. On the face of record, there was therefore diverse citizenship, authorizing, on proper proceedings being taken to bring it about, the removal of the action from the state court to the federal court, and the Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
District of Columbia v. Eslin - 183 U.S. 62 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court District of Columbia v. Eslin, 183 U.S. 62 (1901) District of Columbia v. Eslin No. 36 Argued October 23, 1901 Decided November 3, 1901 183 U.S. 62 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus The Act of June 16, 1880, c. 243, gave the Court of Claims jurisdiction of claims against the District of Columbia like the one which forms the subject of this action. This case was duly heard by the Court of Claims, and the final judgment was entered in favor of the claimants. The District of Columbia appealed to this Court, and later moved to set aside the judgment, and to grant a new trial, pending the decision upon which Congress repealed the Act of June 16, 1880, and enacted that all proceedings under it should be vacated, and that no judgment rendered in pursuance of that act should be paid. Held that this appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and without any determination of the rights of the partie...
Tag this Judgment!