Us Supreme Court Court January 1908 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.
Prosser Vs. Finn
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-13-1908
Prosser v. Finn - 208 U.S. 67 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Prosser v. Finn, 208 U.S. 67 (1908) Prosser v. Finn No. 64 Submitted December 4, 1907 Decided January 13, 1908 208 U.S. 67 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON Syllabus If an entryman's entry is good when made and the Land Department by error of law, adjudges the land to belong to another, a court of equity will convert the latter into a trustee for the former and compel him to convey the legal title. Continued occupation of public land by one not entitled to enter after the disability has been removed is not equivalent to a new entry. The entryman's rights are determined by the validity of the original entry when made. An erroneous interpretation of a statute by the Commissioner of the department to which it applies does not confer any legal rights on one acting in conformity with such interpretation in opposition to the express terms of the statute. Congress having said without qualification, by ...
Consolidated Rendering Co. Vs. Vermont
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-08-1908
Consolidated Rendering Co. v. Vermont - 207 U.S. 541 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Consolidated Rendering Co. v. Vermont, 207 U.S. 541 (1908) Consolidated Rendering Co. v. Vermont No. 364 Argued December 3, 4, 1907 Decided January 8, 1908 207 U.S. 541 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF VERMONT Syllabus Whether a notice to produce books and papers is broader than the state statute provides for is not a federal question. So long as an opportunity to be heard is given to the party objecting to a notice to produce books and papers, before the proceeding to enforce such production is closed, due process of law is afforded, and if the state court has construed the statute providing for such production to the effect Page 207 U. S. 542 that objections raised before a grand jury must be reported to the court for action, there is opportunity to be heard. It is within the power of the state, and due process of law is not denied thereby, to require a corporation doing business ...
Employers' Liability Cases
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-06-1908
Employers' Liability Cases - 207 U.S. 463 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Employers' Liability Cases, 207 U.S. 463 (1908) The Employers' Liability Cases Nos. 216, 222 Argued April 10, 11, 12, 1907 Decided January 6, 1908 207 U.S. 463 I N ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AND THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY Syllabus In testing the constitutionality of an act of Congress, this Court confines itself to the power of Congress to pass the act, and may not consider any real or imaginary evils arising from its execution. Under the grant given by the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce and the authority given to use all means appropriate to the exercise of the powers conferred, Congress has power to regulate the relation of master and servant to the extent that such regulations are confined solely to interstate commerce. An act addressed to all common carriers engaged in interstate commerce, and imposing a liability upon t...
Winslow Vs. Baltimore and Ohio R. Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-06-1908
Winslow v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. - 208 U.S. 59 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Winslow v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 208 U.S. 59 (1908) Winslow v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company No. 6 Argued December 3, 10, 1907 Decided January 6, 1908 208 U.S. 59 I N ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus The objection, taken by a property owner in a condemnation proceeding for a part of his property, that, under the statute, his entire property must be condemned, is waived and cannot be maintained on appeal if he accepts the award made by the commissioners in the condemnation proceeding and paid in by the condemnors for the parcel actually condemned. After an award has been made and accepted, the proceeding is functus officio. 28 App.D.C. 126 affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion. Page 208 U. S. 60 MR. JUSTICE MOODY delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a writ of error to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. The case u...
Carrington Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-06-1908
Carrington v. United States - 208 U.S. 1 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Carrington v. United States, 208 U.S. 1 (1908) Carrington v. United States No. 223 Argued December 16, 1907 Decided January 6, 1908 208 U.S. 1 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Syllabus An office commonly requires something more than a single transitory act to call it into being. A money contribution by the Philippine government to the performance of certain military functions, and entrusting the funds to an officer of the United States Army, who is held to military responsibility therefor by court-martial, does not make that officer a civil officer of the Philippine government and amenable to trial in the civil courts for falsification of his accounts as a public official. The fact that an officer of the United States Army, entrusted with money by the Philippine government to be expended in connection with his military command, signs his account "Disbursing Officer" instead of by his mi...
Williamson Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-06-1908
Williamson v. United States - 207 U.S. 425 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Williamson v. United States, 207 U.S. 425 (1908) Williamson v. United States No. 96 Argued December 5, 6, 1907 Decided January 6, 1908 207 U.S. 425 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON Syllabus Where the writ of error is prosecuted directly from this Court on constitutional grounds, but there are errors assigned as to other subjects, this Court has jurisdiction to review the whole case if any constitutional question is adequate to the exercise of jurisdiction. Burton v. United States, 196 U. S. 283 . An objection taken by a member of Congress that he cannot be sentenced during his term of office on the ground that it would interfere with his constitutional privilege from arrest is not frivolous, even though taken during recess of Congress, and such a claim involves a constitutional question sufficient to give this Court jurisdiction to review the judgment by writ o...
Winters Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-06-1908
Winters v. United States - 207 U.S. 564 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908) Winters v. United States No. 158 Argued October 24, 1907 Decided January 6, 1908 207 U.S. 564 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The rule that all the parties must join in an appeal or writ of error unless properly detached from the right so to do applies only to joint judgments and decrees. This Court has jurisdiction of an appeal taken or writ of error sued out by one of several defendants if his interest is separate from that of the other defendants. In a suit against several defendants as trespassers in which some of them defaulted and others answered, held, that each defendant was a separate trespasser and that, while those who defaulted were precluded from questioning the correctness of the decree entered against them, the answering defendants had nothing in common with the other, and could maintain an appeal without t...
Wabash R. Co. Vs. Adelbert College
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-06-1908
Wabash R. Co. v. Adelbert College - 208 U.S. 38 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Wabash R. Co. v. Adelbert College, 208 U.S. 38 (1908) Wabash R. Company v. Adelbert College No. 40 Argued November 6-7, 1907 Decided January 6, 1908 208 U.S. 38 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OHIO Syllabus Where the federal questions are clearly presented by the answer in the state court, and the decree rendered could not have been made without adversely deciding them, and, as in this case, they are substantial as involving the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court over property in its possession and the effect to be given to its decree, this Court has jurisdiction and the writ of error will not be dismissed. Page 208 U. S. 39 The taking possession by a court of competent jurisdiction of property through it officers withdraws that property from the jurisdiction of all other courts, and the latter, though of concurrent jurisdiction, cannot disturb that possession, during the continuance where...
Holt Vs. Murphy
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-06-1908
Holt v. Murphy - 207 U.S. 407 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Holt v. Murphy, 207 U.S. 407 (1908) Holt v. Murphy No. 61 Argued December 6, 1907 Decided January 6, 1908 207 U.S. 407 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF OKLAHOMA Syllabus Under the general rule of law that an entry segregates the tract entered from the public domain subject to be entered until that entry is disposed of, this Court sustains the rule of the Land Department that no subsequent entry can be received after the Land Commissioner has held the entry for cancellation until the time allotted for appeal has expired or the rights of the original entry have been finally determined. Where the successful party in a land contest does not enforce his preference rights or take any action looking to an entry within the prescribed period, but files a waiver of his right of entry, in the absence of any findings sustaining charges of fraud as to the delivery of the waiver, this Court will not, in an action c...
Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'n Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-06-1908
Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'n v. United States - 207 U.S. 556 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'n v. United States, 207 U.S. 556 (1908) Anheuser-Busch Brewing Association v. United States No. 60 Argued December 9, 1907 Decided January 6, 1908 207 U.S. 556 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus To entitle a manufacturer to drawbacks under 25 of the Tariff Act of October 1, 1890, 26 Stat. 567, 617, on imported raw material used in the manufacture or production of article in the United States, there must be some transformation, so that a new and different article emerges having a distinctive name, character, and use. The mere subjection of imported article, such a cork, to a cleaning and coating process to adapt them to a special use does not amount to manufacturing them within the meaning of the statute, and the exporter is not entitled to drawback thereon. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co. v. United States, 181 U. S. 584 . Semble: an exportation of bottled be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »