Court : US Supreme Court
Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Texas - 197 U.S. 134 (1905) U.S. Supreme Court Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Texas, 197 U.S. 134 (1905) Southern Cotton Oil Company v. Texas No. 38 Argued November 1-2, 1904 Decided February 27, 1905 197 U.S. 134 ERROR TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS IN AND FOR THE THIRD SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS Syllabus Decided on the authority of National Cotton Oil Co. v. Texas, ante, p. 197 U. S. 115 . The facts are stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court. The Southern Cotton Oil Company is a New Jersey corporation doing business in the State of Texas by virtue of a permit issued June 3, 1897, under the laws of the state. The object of this suit is to forfeit the permit of the company for the violation of the antitrust statutes of the state. The violation of the statutes alleged against it is the same as that alleged against the National Cotton Oil Company, the preceding case. The defenses are the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Kehrer v. Stewart - 197 U.S. 60 (1905) U.S. Supreme Court Kehrer v. Stewart, 197 U.S. 60 (1905) Kehrer v. Stewart No. 152 Argued January 24, 25, 1905 Decided February 27, 1905 197 U.S. 60 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA Syllabus As a tax upon the seller of goods is a tax upon the goods themselves, and a tax upon goods sold in one state delivered to a common carrier and consigned to the purchaser in another state is an illegal interference with interstate commerce, a state cannot impose a privilege tax on agents of packing houses as to meats shipped to him from another state merely for distribution to purchasers from his principal; but where the supreme court of the state has held that the tax is void as to interstate shipments and applies only to the domestic business of the agent in the ordinary course of trade, and all other such agents, whether of domestic or foreign packing houses, are subject to the tax, that construction will be accepted by this Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Whitridge - 197 U.S. 135 (1905) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Whitridge, 197 U.S. 135 (1905) United States v. Whitridge No. 413 Argued January 27, 30, 1905 Decided February 27, 1905 197 U.S. 135 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Under the proviso of 25 of the Act of Congress of August 27, 1898, 28 Stat. 509, 552, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized, when he has satisfactory evidence that the rupee price of imported goods stated in the invoice does not mean rupees at bullion value, but as a certain fraction of a pound sterling, to order a reliquidation so as to make the value in United States currency correspond with the actual value of the goods. In determining when the Secretary of the Treasury exceeded his powers under a statute, this Court may consider public facts that were known to Congress when enacting the statute and must have been before the Secretary's mind when acting thereunder, even though...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
National Cotton Oil Co. v. Texas - 197 U.S. 115 (1905) U.S. Supreme Court National Cotton Oil Co. v. Texas, 197 U.S. 115 (1905) National Cotton Oil Co. v. Texas No. 37 Argued November 1-2, 1904 Decided February 27, 1905 197 U.S. 115 ERROR TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS IN AND FOR THE THIRD SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS Syllabus The Anti-Trust Acts of Texas of 1889, 1895, and 1899, are all directed to the prohibitions of combinations to restrict trade, to in any way limit competition in the production or sale of articles, or to increase or reduce prices in order to preclude free and unrestricted competition; and, as the legislature of a state may ordain that competition, and not combination, shall be the law of trade, and may prohibit combinations to control prices, the statutes as they now stand are not in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment, and do not, as against corporations dealing in cotton oil and combining to regulate the price of cotton seed, wor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
San Francisco Nat'l Bank v. Dodge - 197 U.S. 70 (1905) U.S. Supreme Court San Francisco Nat'l Bank v. Dodge, 197 U.S. 70 (1905) San Francisco National Bank v. Dodge No. 44 Argued November 7, 1904 Decided February 27, 1905 197 U.S. 70 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Section 5219, Rev.Stat., authorizes the taxation by the states of shares of stock of national banks but exacts that the tax when levied shall be at no greater rate than that imposed on other moneyed capital; no conflict necessarily arises between the federal statute and a state law solely because the latter provides one method for taxation of state banks and another method for national banks if there is no actual discrimination against the shares of the national banks resulting from the difference in method. If, however, irrespective of the face of the law, the system created by the state law, in its practical execution, produces an actual Page 197 U. S. 71 and material d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
District of Columbia v. Barnes - 197 U.S. 146 (1905) U.S. Supreme Court District of Columbia v. Barnes, 197 U.S. 146 (1905) District of Columbia v. Barnes No. 143 Argued January 23, 1905 Decided February 27, 1905 197 U.S. 146 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus Findings of fact made by the Court of Claims are conclusive here, and the jurisdiction of this Court is limited to determination of questions of law. The intent of the District of Columbia Act of June 16, 1880, 21 Stat. 284, was to enable parties to submit the justice of their claims against the United States for work done in the District prior to March 14 1876, to adjudication in a competent court, and, for that purpose, the jurisdiction conferred was equitable as well as legal; under the equitable jurisdiction so conferred, the Court of Claims has power to reform a written contract between the District of Columbia and a claimant to supply therein what was omitted by mutual mistake of the parties, and to award m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Engard - 196 U.S. 511 (1905) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Engard, 196 U.S. 511 (1905) United States v. Engard No. 136 Argued January 18, 1905 Decided February 20, 1905 196 U.S. 511 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus The Navy Department has no power to disregard the provisions of Rev.Stat. 1556, 1571, and Pars. 1154, 1168, naval regulations and either deprive an officer of sea pay by assigning him to a duty mistakenly qualified as shore duty but which is in law sea duty, or to entitle him to receive sea pay by assigning him to duty which is essentially shore duty and mistakenly qualifying it as sea duty. Where, however, the assignment of an officer to duty by the Navy Department expressly imposes upon him the continued discharge of his sea duties and qualifies the shore duty as merely temporary and ancillary to the regular sea duty, the presumption is that the shore duty is temporary, Page 196 U. S. 512 and does not operate to interfere with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Hasse - 197 U.S. 9 (1905) U.S. Supreme Court Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Hasse, 197 U.S. 9 (1905) Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Hasse No. 118 Submitted January 6, 1905 Decided February 20, 1905 197 U.S. 9 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON Syllabus This case is governed by the decision in Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Townsend, 190 U. S. 267 , and Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Ely, ante, p. 197 U. S. 1 . The facts are stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the Court. This was an action of ejectment brought by the Northern Pacific Railway Company in the Superior Court of Kittitas Page 197 U. S. 10 County, Washington, to recover possession of part of its right of way, the land being partly within and partly without a right of way of two hundred feet in width. Defendants asserted title by virtue of a homestead application, filed May 24, 1883, final proof July 12, 18...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Wheeler v. Plumas County - 196 U.S. 562 (1905) U.S. Supreme Court Wheeler v. Plumas County, 196 U.S. 562 (1905) Wheeler v. Plumas County No. 122 Submitted January 12, 1905 Decided February 20, 1905 196 U.S. 562 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Decided on authority of Flanigan v. Sierra County, ante, p. 196 U. S. 553 . The facts are stated in the opinion. Page 196 U. S. 563 MR. JUSTICE McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court. This case was submitted with Flanigan v. Sierra County. It is also an action for the recovery of a sum of $2,100, alleged to be due for license tax, and $50 damages. The taxes were imposed under an ordinance of the County of Plumas substantially similar to the ordinance passed on in Flanigan v. Sierra County. The action was brought in the Superior Court of Plumas County and removed, upon the petition of the petitioners herein, to the Circuit Court for the Northern District of California. In that co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Hamburg v. American Steamship Co. v. Grube - 196 U.S. 407 (1905) U.S. Supreme Court Hamburg v. American Steamship Co. v. Grube, 196 U.S. 407 (1905) Hamburg v. American Steamship Company v. Grube No. 411 Submitted January 16, 1905 Decided February 20, 1905 196 U.S. 407 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Syllabus The agreement of September 16, 1833, between New York and New Jersey, confirmed by Act of Congress of June 28, 1834, 4 Stat. 708, did not vest exclusive jurisdiction in the federal government over the sea adjoining those states, neither of which abdicated any rights to the United States. Although, when the charge of the state court is not before this Court, and the record contains no exception to any part of it, the verdict and judgment must be held to have been rendered according to law, nevertheless, if a provision of the federal Constitution was properly invoked, the motion to dismiss may be denied. The act of the Legislature of New Jersey of Ma...
Tag this Judgment!