Us Supreme Court Court May 1907 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.
In Re Pollitz
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-27-1907
In re Pollitz - 206 U.S. 323 (1907) U.S. Supreme Court In re Pollitz, 206 U.S. 323 (1907) In re Pollitz No. 16, Original Argued April 8, 1907 Decided May 27, 1907 206 U.S. 323 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS Syllabus The writ of mandamus cannot be used to perform the office of an appeal or writ of error; it will not issue to compel the circuit court to reverse its decision refusing to remand a case removed by a defendant on the ground that the controversy between it and the plaintiff is separate and fully determinable without the presence of the other defendants. Such a decision, being within the jurisdiction and discretion of the court, should be reviewed after final judgment by appeal or writ of error. James Pollitz, a citizen of the State of New York, brought suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of New York against the Wabash Railroad Company, a consolidated railroad corporation existing under the laws of the States of Ohio, Michigan, Illinois,...
Romeu Vs. Todd
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-27-1907
Romeu v. Todd - 206 U.S. 358 (1907) U.S. Supreme Court Romeu v. Todd, 206 U.S. 358 (1907) Romeu v. Todd No. 269 Argued April 19, 1907 Decided May 27, 1907 206 U.S. 358 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF PORTO RICO Syllabus All the local law of Porto Rico is within the legislative control of Congress, and under 8 of the Foraker Act, 31 Stat. 79, the local law remains in force until altered, amended, or repealed by Congress or in the manner provided in the act, and cannot be disregarded by the courts. The local statutory law of real property in Porto Rico, requiring the giving and recording of a cautionary notice of a pending suit in order to affect third parties dealing with the recorded owner, not having been altered, amended or repealed, applies to a suit brought on the equity side of the District Court of the United States for Porto Rico, and notwithstanding the provisions of 34 of the Foraker Act, constructive notice of the pendency...
illinois Central R. Co. Vs. Icc
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-27-1907
Illinois Central R. Co. v. ICC - 206 U.S. 441 (1907) U.S. Supreme Court Illinois Central R. Co. v. ICC, 206 U.S. 441 (1907) Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission No. 88 Argued April 22, 23, 1907 Decided May 27, 1907 206 U.S. 441 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Syllabus The findings of the Interstate Commerce Commission are made by the law prima facie true, and this Court has ascribed to them the strength due to the judgments of a tribunal appointed by law and informed by experience. The reasonableness of a rate is a question of fact, and while the conclusions of the commission are subject to review if that body excludes facts and circumstances that ought to have been considered, they will not, after having been affirmed by the circuit court and circuit court of appeals, be reversed because the commission did not adopt the presumptions of mixed law and fact put forward by appellants as...
iowa Railroad Land Co. Vs. Blumer
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-27-1907
Iowa Railroad Land Co. v. Blumer - 206 U.S. 482 (1907) U.S. Supreme Court Iowa Railroad Land Co. v. Blumer, 206 U.S. 482 (1907) Iowa Railroad Land Co. v. Blumer No. 207 Argued February 26, 27, 1907 Decided May 27, 1907 206 U.S. 482 I N ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IOWA Syllabus Under the Act of Congress of May 15, 1856, 11 Stat. 9, and the Act of the Legislature of Iowa of July 14, 1856, the grant to the Dubuque & Pacific Railroad Co. was in praesenti, and the title passed from the United States and vested in the Iowa when the map of definite location was lodged in the General Land Office, and the right of the company then attached. Iowa Falls Land Co. v. Griffey, 143 U. S. 32 . Where a grant is in praesenti and nothing remains to be done for the administration of the grant in the Land Office, and the conditions have been complied with and the grant fully earned, the company has such a title, notwithstanding the want of final certificate and the issue...
Virginia Vs. West Virginia
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-27-1907
Virginia v. West Virginia - 206 U.S. 290 (1907) U.S. Supreme Court Virginia v. West Virginia, 206 U.S. 290 (1907) Virginia v. West Virginia No. 7. Original Argued March 11, 12, 1907 Decided May 27, 1907 206 U.S. 290 Syllabus This Court has original jurisdiction of a suit by the Virginia against the West Virginia for an accounting as between the two states, and, in order to a full and correct adjustment of the accounts to adjudicate and determine the amount, if any, due the former by the latter. Consent to be sued in this Court by another state is given by a state, by and at the time of its admission into the Union. It will be presumed that the legislature of a state will provide for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be rendered against it, and the jurisdiction and power of this Court is not affected by the question of how it will be enforced. If a state should repudiate its obligation to satisfy judgment rendered against it, this Court will, after the event, consider...
Love Vs. Flahive
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-27-1907
Love v. Flahive - 206 U.S. 356 (1907) U.S. Supreme Court Love v. Flahive, 206 U.S. 356 (1907) Love v. Flahive No. 236 Submitted March 8, 1907 Decided May 27, 1907 206 U.S. 356 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Syllabus Petition for rehearing in Love v. Flahive, 205 U. S. 195 , denied. A sale made by a party who is in possession of a tract of public land with an intent thereafter to enter it as a homestead is equivalent to a relinquishment of the right to enter, and the Department may properly treat the party making the sale as having no further claims upon the land. He may not sell and still have the rights of one who has not sold; nor does he by merely continuing in possession create a new right of entry against the party in whose favor he relinquished his right. The facts are stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE BREWER delivered the opinion of the Court. A petition for rehearing calls our attention to a misstatement in the opinion. We said that "it ...
Copper Queen Cons. Mining Co. Vs. Arizona Board
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-27-1907
Copper Queen Cons. Mining Co. v. Arizona Board - 206 U.S. 474 (1907) U.S. Supreme Court Copper Queen Cons. Mining Co. v. Arizona Board, 206 U.S. 474 (1907) Copper Queen Consolidated Mining Co. v. Territorial Board of Equalization of Arizona No. 280 Argued April 26, 1907 Decided May 27, 1907 206 U.S. 474 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA Syllabus While this Court cannot refuse to exercise its own judgment, it naturally will lean toward the interpretation of a local statute adopted by the local court. The reenactment of a statute in the same words carries with it the presumption that the legislature is satisfied with the construction which it has notoriously received from those whose duty it has been to carry it out, Page 206 U. S. 475 and this presumption is as strong as one that the enactors of the original statute which was adopted verbatim from one of another state knew a single decision of the courts of that state giving a different constructi...
Southern Railway Co. Vs. Tift
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-27-1907
Southern Railway Co. v. Tift - 206 U.S. 428 (1907) U.S. Supreme Court Southern Railway Co. v. Tift, 206 U.S. 428 (1907) Southern Railway Company v. Tift No. 601 Argued April 22, 23, 1907 Decided May 27, 1907 206 U.S. 428 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Although an action at law for damages to recover unreasonable railroad rates which have been exacted in accordance with the schedule of rates as filed is forbidden by the Interstate Commerce Act ( Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Abilene Cotton Co., 204 U. S. 426 ), the Circuit Court may entertain jurisdiction of a bill in equity to restrain the filing or enforcement of a schedule of unreasonable rates or a change to unjust or unreasonable rates. Where, as in this case, the Circuit Court granted no relief on the original bill prejudicial to the railway company, but sent the parties to the Interstate Commerce Commission, and afterwards rendered a decree based upon the fin...
Grafton Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-27-1907
Grafton v. United States - 206 U.S. 333 (1907) U.S. Supreme Court Grafton v. United States, 206 U.S. 333 (1907) Grafton v. United States No. 358 Argued March 18, 19, 1907 Decided May 27, 1907 206 U.S. 333 I N ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Syllabus The prohibition of double jeopardy is applicable to all criminal prosecutions in the Philippine Islands. A person is not put in second jeopardy unless his prior acquittal or conviction was by a court having jurisdiction to try him for the offense charged. The judgment of a court-martial having jurisdiction to try an officer or soldier for a crime is entitled to the same finality and conclusiveness as to the issues involved as the judgment of a civil court in cases within its jurisdiction is entitled to. General courts-martial may take cognizance, under the 62d Article of War, of all crimes, not capital, committed against public law by an officer or soldier of the Army within the limits of the territory w...
Buck Vs. Beach
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-27-1907
Buck v. Beach - 206 U.S. 392 (1907) U.S. Supreme Court Buck v. Beach, 206 U.S. 392 (1907) Buck v. Beach No. 14 Argued March 22, 1907 Decided May 27, 1907 206 U.S. 392 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF INDIANA Syllabus The old rule of mobilia sequuntur personam has been modified so that the owner of personal property may be taxed on its account at its situs although not his residence or domicil; but the mere presence of notes within a state which is not the residence or domicil of the owner does not bring the debts of which they are the written evidence within the taxing jurisdiction of that state, and a tax thereon by that state is illegal and void under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. An attempt to escape proper taxation in one state on the debt represented by a note does not confer jurisdiction on another state, not the residence or domicil of the owner, to tax the note on account of its mere presence therein. Mortgage notes made and payab...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »