Us Supreme Court Court February 1905 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.
San Francisco Nat'l Bank Vs. Dodge
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-27-1905
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...
United States Vs. Whitridge
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-27-1905
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...
Kehrer Vs. Stewart
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-27-1905
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...
Southern Cotton Oil Co. Vs. Texas
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-27-1905
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 ...
National Cotton Oil Co. Vs. Texas
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-27-1905
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...
District of Columbia Vs. Barnes
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-27-1905
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...
Smiley Vs. Kansas
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-20-1905
Smiley v. Kansas - 196 U.S. 447 (1905) U.S. Supreme Court Smiley v. Kansas, 196 U.S. 447 (1905) Smiley v. Kansas No. 13 Argued October 20-21, 1904 Decided February 20, 1905 196 U.S. 447 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS Syllabus This Court will not inquire whether the finding of the jury in the state court is against the evidence; it will take the facts as found and consider only whether the state statute involved is violative of the federal Constitution. The power in the state court to determine the meaning of a state statute carries with it the power to prescribe its extent and limitations, as well as the method by which they shall be determined. Where the highest court of a state has held that the acts of a person convicted of violating a state statute defining and prohibiting trusts were clearly within both the statute and the police power of the state, and that the statute can be sustained as a prohibition of those acts irrespective of the question wh...
Vanderbilt Vs. Eidman
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-20-1905
Vanderbilt v. Eidman - 196 U.S. 480 (1905) U.S. Supreme Court Vanderbilt v. Eidman, 196 U.S. 480 (1905) Vanderbilt v. Eidman No. 206 Argued October 13-14, 1904 Decided February 20, 1905 196 U.S. 480 CERTIFICATE FROM THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Where a legacy under the will of one dying in September, 1899, was to be held in trust by the executors, the legatee only to receive the income until he reached a specified age, which would be subsequent to 1902, when he was to receive the principal, 29 and 30 of the War Revenue Act of June 13, 1898, 30 Stat. 464, did not authorize the assessment or collection, prior to the time when, if ever, such rights or interests should become absolutely vested in possession and enjoyment, of any tax with respect to any of the rights or interests of the legatee with the exception of his present right to receive the income until the age specified. The amendatory Act of March 2, 1901, 31 Stat. 946, a...
Worcester Vs. Street Railway Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-20-1905
Worcester v. Street Railway Co. - 196 U.S. 539 (1905) U.S. Supreme Court Worcester v. Street Railway Co., 196 U.S. 539 (1905) Worcester v. Consolidated Street Railway Company Nos. 144-148 Argued January 23-24, 1905 Decided February 20, 1905 196 U.S. 539 ERROR TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL AND THE SUPERIOR COURTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus The city is the creature of the state. A municipal corporation is simply a political subdivision of the state existing by virtue of the exercise of the power of the state through its legislative department. While a municipal corporation may own property not of a public or governmental nature which is entitled to constitutional protection, the obligation of a railroad company to pave and repair streets occupied by it based on accepted conditions of a municipal ordinance granting rights of location is not private property beyond legislative control. Chapter 578, Laws of Massachusetts of 1898, providing for taxation of street r...
Scottish Union Ins. Co. Vs. Bowland
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-20-1905
Scottish Union Ins. Co. v. Bowland - 196 U.S. 611 (1905) U.S. Supreme Court Scottish Union Ins. Co. v. Bowland, 196 U.S. 611 (1905) Scottish Union and National Insurance Company v. Bowland Nos. 360-361 Argued January 4-5, 1905 Decided February 20, 1905 196 U.S. 611 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Syllabus While technically municipal bonds deposited with the insurance commissioner under the laws of Ohio regulating the right of foreign companies to do business within the state are investments in bonds, they are also a part of the capital stock of the company invested in Ohio and required to be so invested for the security of domestic policyholders, and for the purposes of taxation to be considered as part of the capital stock of the company and included within the statutory definition of personal property required to be returned by foreign and domestic corporations for taxation. While no tax can be levied without express ...