Us Supreme Court Court April 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.
First National Bank Vs. Staake
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-30-1906
First National Bank v. Staake - 202 U.S. 141 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court First National Bank v. Staake, 202 U.S. 141 (1906) First National Bank v. Staake No. 213 Argued March 15, 16, 1906 Decided April 30, 1906 202 U.S. 141 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Under 67 j of the Bankruptcy Law of 1898, attachments obtained within four months of filing the petition on property which, in the absence of the attachments, would pass to other persons, and to which the bankrupt has only a bare legal title, may be preserved for the general benefit of the estate, and whatever the trustee realizes thereon may be distributed among the body of the creditors. The lien is valid, but it loses its preferential character in favor of the attaching creditor by the institution of the bankruptcy proceedings. The extent to which the bankruptcy court shall recognize the rights obtained by creditors upon property attached as property of the bankrupt, but whic...
United States Vs. Milliken Imprinting Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-30-1906
United States v. Milliken Imprinting Co. - 202 U.S. 168 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Milliken Imprinting Co., 202 U.S. 168 (1906) United States v. Milliken Imprinting Company No. 227 Argued April 16, 17, 1906 Decided April 30, 1906 202 U.S. 168 APPEAL FORM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus A corporation having a contract with the government to imprint revenue stamps received notice as to renewal which, among other thing, stated that no application for such contract would be considered from person not already having one; the corporation applied for and obtained a renewal, and the contract when delivered contained no provision for not giving contract to person not then engaged in imprinting stamps; Page 202 U. S. 169 during its life, a similar contract was given to such a person, and the corporation sued in the Court of Claim for reformation of its contract on ground that the omission was mutual mistake and also for loss of profits on business diverted to such perso...
Whitney Vs. Dick
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-30-1906
Whitney v. Dick - 202 U.S. 132 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court Whitney v. Dick, 202 U.S. 132 (1906) Whitney v. Dick No. 494, 557 Submitted April 3, 1906 Decided April 30, 1906 202 U.S. 132 APPEAL FROM AND CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT SOURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Final orders of the circuit court of appeals may be brought to this Court, of right, only where the matter in dispute exceeds $1,000, and there is no appeal where, as in a habeas corpus proceeding, no amount is involved. The circuit court of appeals is a court created by statute, and is not endowed with any original jurisdiction, and as there is no language in the statute which can be construed into a grant of power to issue a writ of habeas corpus unless it be one in aid of a jurisdiction already existing, Page 202 U. S. 133 that court is not authorized to issue original and independent writs of habeas corpus. Although the circuit court of appeals may possess the power, which has been exercised by thi...
Sawyer Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-30-1906
Sawyer v. United States - 202 U.S. 150 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court Sawyer v. United States, 202 U.S. 150 (1906) Sawyer v. United States No. 553 Argued April 4, 5, 1906 Decided April 30, 1906 202 U.S. 150 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Syllabus The passage of the Act of July 20, 1840, 5 Stat. 391, and of 800, Rev.Stat. granting peremptory challenges to the government in criminal cases has not taken away the right to conditional or qualified challenges when permitted in the state, and where it has been adopted by the federal court as a rule or by special order. The exercise of the right is under supervision of the court, which should not permit it to be used unreasonably or so as to prejudice defendant. It is not an unreasonable exercise of the privilege where, notwithstanding its exercise, neither the government nor the defendant exhausted all of their peremptory challenges. Where defendant takes the stand in his own...
United States Vs. Cherokee Nation
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-30-1906
United States v. Cherokee Nation - 202 U.S. 101 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Cherokee Nation, 202 U.S. 101 (1906) United States v. Cherokee Nation Nos. 346-348 Argued January 16-18, 1906 Decided April 30, 1906 202 U.S. 101 APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus Under sec. 68 of the Cherokee Act of July 1, 1902, 32 Stat. 726, as construed by the Act of March 3, 1903, 32 Stat. 726, and the agreement of December 19, 1891, providing for the sale of the Cherokee Outlet, the Court of claims had jurisdiction of all claims of the Cherokee Indians against the United States, and the claims were to be reopened and reexamined de novo, and the court and the accountants were to go behind statutory and treaty bars and receipts in full, and were to consider any alleged and declared amount of money promised but withheld under any treaty or law. The United States, as stated in the Slade & Bender account made under the agreement of December 19, 1891, and as found by the Cou...
Jaster Vs. Currie
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-24-1906
Jaster v. Currie - 198 U.S. 144 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court Jaster v. Currie, 198 U.S. 144 (1905) Jaster v. Currie No. 205 Argued April 7 and 10, 1905 Decided April 24, 1906 198 U.S. 144 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA Syllabus Service of a writ, in Ohio, upon a party who came into the state for the purpose of being present at the taking of a deposition, which was taken according to the notice, if it would have been good otherwise, is not made bad by the fact that the notice was given for the sole purpose of inducing the party to come into the state. Refusal by the court of the other state to treat the judgment based on such service as binding is a failure to give it due faith and credit as required by Article IV, 1, of the Constitution of the United States. The facts are stated in the opinion. Page 198 U. S. 146 MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an action brought by the plaintiff in error in Nebraska upon a judgment recov...
Hazelton Vs. Sheckells
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-23-1906
Hazelton v. Sheckells - 202 U.S. 71 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court Hazelton v. Sheckells, 202 U.S. 71 (1906) Hazelton v. Sheckells No. 225 Argued April 12, 1906 Decided April 23, 1906 202 U.S. 71 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus Every part of the consideration for a contract goes equally to the whole promise, and if any part of it is contrary to public policy, the whole promise falls. A contract to deliver property at an agreed price within the duration of specified session of Congress, it being understood that a part of the consideration is that the person to whom the property is to be conveyed is to endeavor to sell it to the United States and to procure legislation to that end -- he not being under obligation to take and pay for the property -- is void as against public policy, and specific performance will not be enforced. The facts are stated in the opinion. Page 202 U. S. 76 MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court. Th...
Oregon Vs. Hitchcock
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-23-1906
Oregon v. Hitchcock - 202 U.S. 60 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court Oregon v. Hitchcock, 202 U.S. 60 (1906) Oregon v. Hitchcock No. 16, Original Argued April 5, 6, 1906 Decided April 23, 1906 202 U.S. 60 I N EQUITY Syllabus In the absence of any act of Congress waiving immunity of the United States or consenting that it be sued in respect to swamp lands, either within or without an Indian reservation, or of any act of Congress assuming full responsibility in behalf of its wards, the Indians, affecting their rights to such lands, this Court has no jurisdiction of an action brought by a state against the Secretary of the Interior and Commissioner of the General Land Office to enjoin them from patenting to Indians lands within that state, claimed by the state under the swamp land acts. Page 202 U. S. 61 The fact that the action is brought by a state against the Secretary of the Interior, who is a citizen of a different state, does not give this Court jurisdiction as the real party i...
Perez Vs. Fernandez
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-23-1906
Perez v. Fernandez - 202 U.S. 80 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court Perez v. Fernandez, 202 U.S. 80 (1906) Perez v. Fernandez No. 1 Argued April 29, 1904 Decided April 23, 1906 202 U.S. 80 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF PORTO RICO Syllabus The policy of the United States, evidenced in its legislation concerning the islands ceded by Spain, has been to secure to the people thereof a continuation of the laws and methods of practice and administration familiar to them, which are to be controlling until changed by law, and it was the intention of Congress in sec. 34 of the Foraker Act of April 12, 1900, to require the United States District Court for Porto Rico, in exercising the jurisdiction of a Circuit Court in analogy to the powers of those courts in the United States, to adapt itself, in cases other than of equity and admiralty, to the local procedure and practice of Porto Rico. And so held in regard to administering the remedy of attachment. T...
Lochner Vs. New York
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-17-1906
Lochner v. New York - 198 U.S. 45 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905) Lochner v. New York No. 292 Argued February 23, 24, 1905 Decided April 17, 1906 198 U.S. 45 ERROR TO THE COUNTY COURT OF ONEIDA COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK Syllabus The general right to make a contract in relation to his business is part of the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and this includes the right to purchase and sell labor, except as controlled by the State in the legitimate exercise of its police power. Liberty of contract relating to labor includes both parties to it; the one has as much right to purchase as the other to sell labor. There is no reasonable ground, on the score of health, for interfering with the liberty of the person or the right of free contract, by determining the hours of labor, in the occupation of a baker. Nor can a law limiting such hours be justified a a health law to safeguard the public health, or the health of the individuals ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »