Us Supreme Court Court March 1906 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.
St. Louis Beef Co. Vs. Maryland Cas. Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-19-1906
St. Louis Beef Co. v. Maryland Cas. Co. - 201 U.S. 173 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court St. Louis Beef Co. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 201 U.S. 173 (1906) St. Louis Beef Dressed Beef and Provision Company v. Maryland Casualty Company No. 197 Argued March 7, 1906 Decided March 19, 1906 201 U.S. 173 CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus An insurance company issued its policy insuring the assured against statutory and common law liability for damages caused by negligence of insured or its employees, the insured to give immediate notice of any accident to the company, which agreed to defend any suit for damages brought against the assured, the latter not to make any settlement without the company's consent, and not to bring any action under the policy except for loss actually paid in satisfaction of judgment after trial. After an accident of which notice was duly given, the assured was sued and the company refused to defend on the ground that the acc...
A. Leschen and Sons Rope Co. Vs. Broderick and Bascom Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-19-1906
A. Leschen & Sons Rope Co. v. Broderick & Bascom Co. - 201 U.S. 166 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court A. Leschen & Sons Rope Co. v. Broderick & Bascom Co., 201 U.S. 166 (1906) A. Leschen & Sons Rope Company v. Broderick & Bascom Rope Company No. 187 Argued March 1, 1906 Decided March 19, 1906 201 U.S. 166 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus A trademark for wire rope of a red or other distinctively colored streak applied to or woven in the rope is too wide and too indefinite. Where color is made the essential feature of a trademark, it must be so Page 201 U. S. 167 defined or connected with some symbol or design that other manufacturers may know what they can safely do. A trademark not limited to a particular color must stand or fall in its entirety, and if the description is too broad, it cannot be sustained by proof that only a particular color is used. Quaere whether mere color not impressed in a particular design can constitute a valid...
In Re National Enameling and Stamping Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-19-1906
In re National Enameling & Stamping Co. - 201 U.S. 156 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court In re National Enameling & Stamping Co., 201 U.S. 156 (1906) In re National Enameling and Stamping Company No. 17, Original Argued February 19, 1906 Decided March 19, 1906 201 U.S. 156 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS Syllabus Plaintiffs brought suit upon a single patent, in which there were twelve claims. The Circuit Court found that three of the claims were invalid and nine valid, of which five had been infringed, and referred it to a master to report the amount of damages and dismissed the bill as to the claims found invalid and not infringed. Defendants appealed from the decree and plaintiffs also filed cross-appeal assigning as errors the rulings adverse to them. The circuit court of appeals dismissed the cross-appeal. Petition for mandamus to compel that court to take jurisdiction of the cross-appeal denied and held that: The decree was interlocutory, and not final, and in the federal cour...
Hale Vs. Henkel
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-12-1906
Hale v. Henkel - 201 U.S. 43 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906) Hale v. Henkel No. 340 Argued January 4, 5, 1906 Decided March 12, 1906 201 U.S. 43 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus Under the practice in this country, the examination of witnesses by a Federal grand jury need not be preceded by a presentment or formal indictment, but the grand jury may proceed, either upon their own knowledge or upon examination of witnesses, to inquire whether a crime cognizable by the court has been committed, and, if so, they may indict upon such evidence. In summoning witnesses, it is sufficient to apprise them of the names of the parties with respect to whom they will be called to testify, without indicating the nature of the charge against them or laying a basis by a formal indictment. The examination of a witness before a grand jury is a "proceeding" within the meaning of the proviso to the gene...
Valentina Vs. Mercer
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-12-1906
Valentina v. Mercer - 201 U.S. 131 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court Valentina v. Mercer, 201 U.S. 131 (1906) Valentina v. Mercer No. 404 Argued February 27, 1906 Decided March 12, 1906 201 U.S. 131 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Syllabus Felts v. Murphy, ante, p. 201 U. S. 123 , followed, to effect that the writ of habeas corpus cannot perform the functions of a writ of error, and that the power of federal courts to review the judgments of state courts is limited entirely to the question of jurisdiction. On a trial for murder, the accused admitted the killing, and after all the facts were presented, the court charged the jury to consider all the evidence, and that, if the killing was premeditated, to find a verdict of guilty in the first degree, if not, then on the admitted facts it was murder in the second degree. The jury found in the first degree. The highest court of the state held the charge was without error. Held that...
New Mexico Vs. Atchison, T. and S.F. Ry. Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-12-1906
New Mexico v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co. - 201 U.S. 41 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court New Mexico v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 201 U.S. 41 (1906) New Mexico v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company No. 182 Argued January 26, 1906 Decided March 12, 1906 201 U.S. 41 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO Syllabus Plaintiff sued in the district court of a territory for several items and recovered judgment for less than amount sued for but over $5,000 with interest at six percent. Defendant alone sued out writ of error from the supreme court of the territory, which disallowed $4,880 of the judgment, including interest at six percent. Plaintiff then appealed to this Court, and prayed for reinstatement of the district court judgment and, when the case was reached for hearing here, assigned as additional error that the district court had not allowed twenty-five percent, instead of six percent, interest, which would have made the amount disallow...
Felts Vs. Murphy
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-12-1906
Felts v. Murphy - 201 U.S. 123 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court Felts v. Murphy, 201 U.S. 123 (1906) Felts v. Murphy No. 533 Argued February 26, 27, 1906 Decided March 12, 1906 201 U.S. 123 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus Where, in the criminal trial of a person compos mentis, but almost totally deaf, the state court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the person, and also to direct and enforce the judgment which was entered, the jurisdiction is not lost by any irregularities caused by the failure of the court to have the testimony repeated to the accused through an ear trumpet; nor is the accused thereby deprived of his liberty without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Even though the case be a hard one, federal courts cannot on habeas corpus proceedings grant relief from the judgment; their power is limited to the question of jurisdiction. The writ of habeas corpus cannot pe...
Kentucky Vs. Powers
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-12-1906
Kentucky v. Powers - 201 U.S. 1 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court Kentucky v. Powers, 201 U.S. 1 (1906) Kentucky v. Powers No. 393, Submitted No. 15, Original Argued January 22, 1906 Decided March 12, 1906 201 U.S. 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS Syllabus Subordinate judicial tribunals of the United States can exercise only such jurisdiction as may be authorized by acts of Congress, and, whatever the nature of a civil suit or criminal proceeding in a state court, it cannot be removed to the federal court unless warrant therefor be found in some act of Congress. Under 641, 642, Rev.Stat., there is no right of removal into the circuit court of the trial of a person indicted under the state law where the alleged discrimination against the accused in respect to his equal rights is due merely to illegal or corrupt acts of administrative officers unauthorized by the constitution or laws of the state as interpreted by its highest court. The remedy for wrongs of that character is in the ...
Otis Co. Vs. Ludlow Mfg. Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-12-1906
Otis Co. v. Ludlow Mfg. Co. - 201 U.S. 140 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court Otis Co. v. Ludlow Mfg. Co., 201 U.S. 140 (1906) Otis Company v. Ludlow Manufacturing Company No. 73 Argued March 1, 2, 1906 Decided March 12, 1906 201 U.S. 140 ERROR TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus Where the federal question is distinctly set up in the bill, and insisted on at every stage, and the state court could not have decided as it did without overruling the claim, this Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment on writ of error. In determining whether a statute of a state is constitutional, this Court cannot wholly neglect the long settled law and common understanding of that state, and will not, under the Fourteenth Amendment, upset what has long been established and accepted. Even the incidents of ownership may be cut down by the peculiar laws and usages of a state. Under the Massachusetts Mill Act, the right of the lower owner only becomes complete when the land...
Nelson Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-12-1906
Nelson v. United States - 201 U.S. 92 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court Nelson v. United States, 201 U.S. 92 (1906) Nelson v. United States Nos. 490-492 Argued January 5, 8, 1906 Decided March 12, 1906 201 U.S. 92 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Syllabus In a suit in the circuit court of the United States brought by the United States against corporations for violations of the Anti-Trust Law of July 2, 1890, a witness refused to answer questions or submit book to inspection before an examiner appointed by the court on the ground of immateriality, also pleading the Fifth Amendment; after the court had overruled the objections and directed him to answer he again refused, and judgment in contempt was entered against him. On appeal to this Court, held that: Questions under the Constitution of the United States were involved, and this Court has jurisdiction of an appeal direct from the circuit court. In such an action, the books of the va...