Us Supreme Court Court May 1902 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.
Swafford Vs. Templeton
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-19-1902
Swafford v. Templeton - 185 U.S. 487 (1902) U.S. Supreme Court Swafford v. Templeton, 185 U.S. 487 (1902) Swafford v. Templeton No. 487 Submitted April 14, 1902 Decided May 19, 1902 185 U.S. 487 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE Syllabus The court below erred in dismissing this action for want of jurisdiction, as the right which it was claimed had been unlawfully invaded was one arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and although it has been held that, on error from a state court to this Court, where the federal question asserted to be contained in the record is manifestly lacking all color of merit, the writ of error should be dismissed, that doctrine relates to questions arising on writs of error from state courts, where, aside from the federal status of the parties to the action or the inherent nature of the federal right which is sought to be vindicated, jurisdiction is to be determined by ascertaining whether the re...
Montana Mining Co. Vs. St. Louis Mining Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-19-1902
Montana Mining Co. v. St. Louis Mining Co. - 186 U.S. 24 (1902) U.S. Supreme Court Montana Mining Co. v. St. Louis Mining Co., 186 U.S. 24 (1902) Montana Mining Company v. St. Louis Mining and Milling Co. Nos. 213-214 Argued April 9, 1902 Decided May 19, 1902 186 U.S. 24 ERROR TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus When, by the judgment of the circuit court, each party to a cause is defeated in some part of his contention and both take the case to the circuit court of appeals, which affirms the judgment in favor of one party and reverses it and remands the cause at the suit of the same party, the judgments of that court, taken together, cannot be regarded as final so far as the jurisdiction of this Court is concerned, and writs of error from this Court to review each judgment must be dismissed. This was an action brought by the St. Louis Mining & Milling Company of Montana against the Montana Mining Page 186 U. S. 25 Company in the C...
Bement Vs. National Harrow Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-19-1902
Bement v. National Harrow Co. - 186 U.S. 70 (1902) U.S. Supreme Court Bement v. National Harrow Co., 186 U.S. 70 (1902) Bement v. National Harrow Company No. 216 Argued April 9-10, 1902 Decided May 19, 1902 186 U.S. 70 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Syllabus Anyone sued upon a contract may set up as a defense that it is a violation of an act of Congress. The object of the patent laws is monopoly, and the rule is, with few exceptions, that any conditions which are not in their very nature illegal with regard to this kind of property, imposed by the patentee and agreed to by the licensee for the right to manufacture or use or sell the article, will be upheld by the courts, and the fact that the conditions in the contracts keep up the monopoly, does not render them illegal. The prohibition was a reasonable prohibition for the defendant, who would thus be excluded from making such harrows as were made by others who were engaged in manufacturing and selling...
Ward Vs. Joslin
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-19-1902
Ward v. Joslin - 186 U.S. 142 (1902) U.S. Supreme Court Ward v. Joslin, 186 U.S. 142 (1902) Ward v. Joslin No. 216 Argued April 30, 1902 Decided May 19, 1902 186 U.S. 142 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT Syllabus As between creditor and stockholder, the provision of the Constitution of Kansas that "dues from corporations shall be secured by individual liability of the stockholders to an additional amount equal to the stock owned by each stockholder" applies to indebtedness incurred in the legitimate and contemplated business of the corporation. Where a judgment has been rendered in Kansas against a corporation of that state, by default, on contracts which the corporation had no power to make, a stockholder when sued by virtue of the Constitution and laws of Kansas in that behalf, may insist, in defense, on the invalidity of the contracts. On the facts found, the judgment below is correct, and is affirmed. September 12, 1888, S. S. Hite and...
Lee Lung Vs. Patterson
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-19-1902
Lee Lung v. Patterson - 186 U.S. 168 (1902) U.S. Supreme Court Lee Lung v. Patterson, 186 U.S. 168 (1902) Lee Lung v. Patterson No. 189 Argued and submitted April 21, 1902 Decided May 19, 1902 186 U.S. 168 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON Syllabus Under the statutes referred to in the opinion of the Court, jurisdiction is given to the collector of the port at which an alien Chinese seeks to land, over his right to do so, and necessarily also to pass upon the evidence presented to establish that right. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. MR. JUSTICE McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from a judgment which dismissed a petition in habeas corpus on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to grant the relief which was prayed. The petitioner Page 186 U. S. 169 represented that he was a citizen of the Chinese Empire, and for more than twenty years last past a merchant in the City of Por...
The Styria
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-19-1902
The Styria - 186 U.S. 1 (1902) U.S. Supreme Court The Styria, 186 U.S. 1 (1902) The Styria Nos. 72-75 Argued November 22, 25, 1901 Decided May 19, 1902 186 U.S. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus The Styria, an Austrian steamship sailing from Trieste via Sicilian ports to New York, took on board at Port Empedocle, Sicily, a quantity of sulphur for New York. Before sailing, the master learned that war had broken out between Spain and the United States, and as sulphur was an article contraband of war, he had the sulphur all unloaded and warehoused at Port Empedocle before sailing. This Court holds that the master of the Styria was justified in relanding and warehousing the contraband portion of the cargo, and that in so doing, he had reasonable regard for the interests of both ship and cargo. This Court does not think that, in the subsequent circumstances, it was the master's duty to reship that cargo, and resume hi...
Mcclaughry Vs. Deming
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-19-1902
McClaughry v. Deming - 186 U.S. 49 (1902) U.S. Supreme Court McClaughry v. Deming, 186 U.S. 49 (1902) McClaughry v. Deming No. 610 Argued April 28-29, 1902 Decided May 19, 1902 186 U.S. 49 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Syllabus The trial of an officer of volunteers by a court-martial, all the members of which were officers of the Regular Army, is illegal, and the objection to it could be taken on habeas corpus. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus was presented to the circuit court of the United States for the District of Kansas, First Division, asking that Peter C. Deming, once a captain in the Subsistence Department of the Volunteer Army of the United States, might be produced by Robert W. McClaughry, the appellant herein, in whose custody Deming was placed, McClaughry being the warden of the United States prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. On the part of Deming, it was shown in the petition that he was imprisoned and restrained by virtue o...
Bowker Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-19-1902
Bowker v. United States - 186 U.S. 135 (1902) U.S. Supreme Court Bowker v. United States, 186 U.S. 135 (1902) Bowker v. United States No. 247 Argued April 30, May 1, 1902 Decided May 19, 1902 186 U.S. 135 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Syllabus Cases in which the jurisdiction of the district or circuit courts of the United States is in issue can only be brought directly to this Court after final judgment on the whole case. When a libel and cross-libel are filed in admiralty, they should be heard together, and if the cross-libel is dismissed for want of jurisdiction before the whole case is heard and determined, this Court cannot take jurisdiction of the order of dismissal under section five of the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1891. The case is stated by the district court, in substance, as follows: on November 3, 1899, a libel was filed on behalf of the United States in the District Court of the United States for the District ...
Williams Vs. Gaylord
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-19-1902
Williams v. Gaylord - 186 U.S. 157 (1902) U.S. Supreme Court Williams v. Gaylord, 186 U.S. 157 (1902) Williams v. Gaylord No. 208 Argued April 8-9, 1902 Decided May 19, 1902 186 U.S. 157 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus This suit was brought by petitioner as trustee of a mortgage. Held that when a corporation sells or encumbers its property, incurs debts, or gives securities, it does business, and a statute regulating such transactions does not regulate the internal affairs of the corporation. This suit was brought by the petitioner as trustee of a mortgage made by the Gold Hill Mining Company, a corporation of West Virginia, upon certain mining ground in the State of California. Subsequently to the execution of the mortgage, Page 186 U. S. 158 the corporation, in the conduct of its mining operations in the State of California, became indebted to the respondents for materials, labor, and supplies. Mechanics' and materialmen's li...
Emsheimer Vs. New Orleans
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-19-1902
Emsheimer v. New Orleans - 186 U.S. 33 (1902) U.S. Supreme Court Emsheimer v. New Orleans, 186 U.S. 33 (1902) Emsheimer v. New Orleans No. 347 Argued March 19-20, 1902 Decided May 19, 1902 186 U.S. 33 CERTIFICATE FROM THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus A certificate under section six of the act of 1891 should contain a proper statement of the facts on which the question or proposition of law arises. The entire record should not be transmitted and a decision asked on the whole case. The inquiry as to the jurisdiction of the circuit court of suits to recover the contents of choses in action relates, so far as the assignors are concerned, to the time when the suit is brought. If at that time the assignors could have brought suit in the circuit court, it is immaterial whether they could have done so when the assignment was made. The certificate in this case is as follows: "This suit was commenced by filing in the circuit court the fol...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »