Us Supreme Court Court October 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.
Steele Vs. Culver
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Oct-26-1908
Steele v. Culver - 211 U.S. 26 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Steele v. Culver, 211 U.S. 26 (1908) Steele v. Culver No. 393 Submitted June 1, 1908 Decided October 26, 1908 211 U.S. 26 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, SOUTHERN DIVISION Syllabus Where jurisdiction of the circuit court depends on diversity of citizenship, the parties may be rearranged according to their real interests. Where a party defendant should be aligned as a party plaintiff, is a necessary party, and is a citizen of the which the other defendants are citizens, the circuit court has not jurisdiction. In order to confer jurisdiction on the circuit court, one who is a necessary party cannot be omitted merely on account of his insolvency. A judgment against a surety cannot be impeached so long as the judgment against the principal on which it is based stands, and in a suit brought by the surety to set both judgments aside, the principal is a necessary part...
Brandon Vs. Ard
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Oct-19-1908
Brandon v. Ard - 211 U.S. 11 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Brandon v. Ard, 211 U.S. 11 (1908) Brandon v. Ard No. 24 Submitted April 29, 1908 Decided October 19, 1908 211 U.S. 11 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS Syllabus The policy of the federal government toward bona fide settlers upon the public lands is liberal, and the law deals tenderly with them. A homesteader who has done all that the law requires will not lose his rights on account of error of, or unauthorized action by, a public official. Ard v. Brandon, 156 U. S. 537 . Lands within indemnity limits of a railroad grant are not open for settlement under homestead laws until the map of definite location has been filed and their selection to supply deficiencies in place limits has been approved by the Secretary of the Interior, and their prior withdrawal by the Secretary from sale and settlement is unauthorized, and does not affect the rights of bona fide settlers. So held as to grants under th...
Frasch Vs. Moore
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Oct-19-1908
Frasch v. Moore - 211 U.S. 1 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Frasch v. Moore, 211 U.S. 1 (1908) Frasch v. Moore No. 14 Argued April 23, 24, 1908 Decided October 19, 1908 211 U.S. 1 APPEAL FROM AND IN ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus A decision of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia in an appeal from the Commissioner of Patents under Rev.Stat. 4914, 4915, 9 of the Act of February 9, 1893, c. 74, 27 Stat. 434, and 780, Rev.Stat., District of Columbia, is interlocutory and not final, and is not reviewable by this Court under 8 of the Act of February 9, 1893, either by appeal or writ of error. Rousseau v. Browne, 21 App.D.C. 73, approved. , Appeal from and writ of error to review, 27 App.D.C. 25, dismissed. Frasch applied for a patent for an invention of a new and useful improvement in the art of making salt by evaporation of brine. He expressed his alleged invention in six claims, three of which were for the process of removing i...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›