Us Supreme Court Court March 1901 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.
Friedman Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-28-1901
Friedman v. United States - 255 U.S. 468 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Friedman v. United States, 255 U.S. 468 (1921) Friedman v. United States No. 221 Argued March 17, 1921 Decided March 28, 1901 255 U.S. 468 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus Section 2347 of the Revised Statutes, in providing that public coal lands may be entered upon payment of "not less than" ten dollars per acre and "not less than" twenty dollars per acre, according to their distance from a completed railroad, sets up those prices as minima, and, by implication, empowers the Secretary of the Interior to charge higher prices proportionate to the value of tracts sold. P. 255 U. S. 469 . 54 Ct.Clms. 225 affirmed. The case is stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court. Action to recover the sum of $3,600, excessive payment exacted by the Secretary of the Interior for 120 acres of coal land, which plaintiff (we so designate him in this opinion) was entitled to ent...
Danville Water Co. Vs. Danville City
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-28-1901
Danville Water Co. v. Danville City - 180 U.S. 619 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Danville Water Co. v. Danville City, 180 U.S. 619 (1901) Danville Water Co. v. Danville City No. 373 Submitted November 12, 1900 Decided March 28, 1901 180 U.S. 619 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Syllabus The judgment below is affirmed on the authority of Freeport Water Co. v. Freeport City, ante, 180 U. S. 587 . The case is stated in the opinion of the Court. MR. JUSTICE McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court. The parties to this action were respectively plaintiff and defendant in the courts of the state, and we will so denominate them. The plaintiff is a private corporation, and the defendant is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the general laws of the state. The action was brought by the plaintiff to recover the sum of $5,000, alleged to be due for the rental of certain fire hydrants. The cause of action relied on is based on an ordinance passed...
MountaIn View Mining and Milling Co. Vs. Mcfadden
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-26-1901
Mountain View Mining & Milling Co. v. McFadden - 180 U.S. 533 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Mountain View Mining & Milling Co. v. McFadden, 180 U.S. 533 (1901) Mountain View Mining & Milling Company v. McFadden No. 162 Submitted March 5, 1901 Decided March 26, 1901 180 U.S. 533 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Blackburn v. Portland Gold Mining Company, 175 U. S. 571 , and Shoshone Mining Company v. Rutter, 177 U. S. 505 , affirmed and applied. Resort cannot be had to judicial knowledge to raise controversies not presented by the pleadings. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court. Page 180 U. S. 534 MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the Court. The Mountain View Mining & Milling Company had made application for a patent on a certain lode mining claim in the land office at Spokane, Washington, against which McFadden and others duly filed their protest and adverse claim, and thereupon brought this action "in ai...
Throckmorton Vs. Holt
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-26-1901
Throckmorton v. Holt - 180 U.S. 552 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Throckmorton v. Holt, 180 U.S. 552 (1901) Throckmorton v. Holt No. 21 Argued December 7, 10, 1900 Decided March 26, 1901 180 U.S. 552 ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus At the trial of this case before the jury, the main issue was upon the validity of the will of Adjutant General Holt. Tecumseh Sherman, a son of General Sherman, was called to prove that the signature of his mother as a witness was genuine. He was not inquired of as to the genuineness of the signature of his father, because his uncle, Senator Sherman, had testified that that signature was genuine. Subsequently Mr. Randolph testified that he was familiar with the signature of General Sherman, giving his sources of knowledge, and that he was of opinion, (giving his reasons for it) that it was not his signature. Tecumseh Sherman was recalled to prove that the objection found to the signature of his father was not an un...
Rogers Park Water Co. Vs. Fergus
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-25-1901
Rogers Park Water Co. v. Fergus - 180 U.S. 624 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Rogers Park Water Co. v. Fergus, 180 U.S. 624 (1901) Rogers Park Water Company v. Fergus No. 66 Argued and submitted October 31, 1900 Decided March 25, 1901 180 U.S. 624 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Syllabus So far as the contentions in this case are the same as those passed upon in Freeport Water Co. v. Freeport City, ante, 180 U. S. 587 , and in Danville Water Company v. Danville City, ante, 180 U. S. 619 , they are governed by those cases. A governmental function in a statute granting powers to a municipal corporation cannot be held to have been granted away by statutory provisions which are doubtful or ambiguous. There is no complaint in this case that the rates fixed by the ordinance of 1897, passed by the City Council of Chicago, were unreasonable, and as the plaintiff in error relies strictly on a contractual right, and as it has no such right, the judgment below...
In Re Alexander Mckenzie
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-25-1901
In re Alexander McKenzie - 180 U.S. 536 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court In re Alexander McKenzie, 180 U.S. 536 (1901) In re Alexander McKenzie No. ___ Original Submitted February 26, 1901 Decided March 25, 1901 180 U.S. 536 ORIGINAL Syllabus The writ of habeas corpus cannot be made use of as a writ of error, and when applied for to relieve from restraint in punishment for contempt in the violation of orders of court, will not be issued unless the orders violated are absolutely void. Orders of the District Court of Alaska, Second Division, appointing a receiver and granting an injunction are appealable to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and on refusal of the district court to do so, the court of appeals may allow such appeals with supersedeas, and grant writs of supersedeas, if considered necessary. If a judge of the court of appeals allows such appeals and supersedeas, and directs the issue of writs of supersedeas, ordering, among other things, the restoratio...
Freeport Water Co. Vs. Freeport City
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-25-1901
Freeport Water Co. v. Freeport City - 180 U.S. 587 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Freeport Water Co. v. Freeport City, 180 U.S. 587 (1901) Freeport Water Company v. Freeport City No. 349 Submitted October 31, 1900 Decided March 25, 1901 180 U.S. 587 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Syllabus The water company was a corporation organized under general statutes of Illinois, as was also the city. In June, 1882, the government of the city gave the water company an exclusive right to supply the city with water for thirty years, reserving the right of purchasing the works erected for that purpose, and if this right were not exercised, the rights of the company were to be extended for a further term. Provision was made for the erection of hydrants by the company for which fixed rentals were to be charged, and the city was given rights in a part of them. Further provisions were made for the payment of water rates by consumers. In 1896, an ordinance was passed by the ci...
Thompson Vs. Ferry
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-18-1901
Thompson v. Ferry - 180 U.S. 484 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Thompson v. Ferry, 180 U.S. 484 (1901) Thompson v. Ferry No. 144 Submitted February 25, 1901 Decided March 18, 1901 180 U.S. 484 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA Syllabus This appeal being from the judgment of a territorial court and no exceptions to the rulings of the court on the admission or rejection of testimony being presented for consideration, the court is limited to a determination of the question whether the facts found are sufficient to sustain the judgment rendered. And this must be assumed to be the case, as the so-called statement of facts is not in compliance with the statute. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court. THE CHIEF JUSTICE: This appeal being from the judgment of a territorial court, and no errors having been assigned on exceptions to rulings on the admission or rejection of testimony, we are limited in our review to the determination of the question wheth...
Minnesota Vs. Brundage
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-18-1901
Minnesota v. Brundage - 180 U.S. 499 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Minnesota v. Brundage, 180 U.S. 499 (1901) Minnesota v. Brundage No. 159 Argued February 28, 1901 Decided March 18, 1901 180 U.S. 499 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Syllabus The principle reaffirmed that, when the petitioner is in custody by state authority for an act done or omitted to be done in pursuance of a law of the United States or of an order, process or decree of a court or judge thereof, or where, being a subject or citizen of a foreign state, and domiciled therein, he is in custody under like authority for an act done or omitted under an alleged right, title, authority, privilege, protection or exemption claimed under the commission, or order, or sanction of any foreign state, or under color thereof, the validity and effect whereof depend upon the law of nations; in such and like cases of urgency involving the authority and operations of the general g...
Magruder Vs. Armes
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-18-1901
Magruder v. Armes - 180 U.S. 496 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Magruder v. Armes, 180 U.S. 496 (1901) Magruder v. Armes No. 171 Argued and submitted March 7, 1901 Decided March 18, 1901 180 U.S. 496 ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus Jurisdiction cannot be vested in this Court, in a case brought here by writ of error to the court of the District of Columbia, by a mere claim of the statutory amount of damages, unsupported by facts. On February 13, 1896, in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia at the circuit court, Term No. 1 thereof, a judgment was entered in favor of George A. Armes, of which the following is a copy: "Comes here now the plaintiff, by his attorney, and prays judgment on the verdict rendered in this case on the 7th instant, which is granted. Therefore it is considered that the plaintiff recover against said defendant and George C. W. Magruder, her surety, six dollars and twenty-five cents ($6.25), being the money payable...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »