Us Supreme Court Court November 1908 Judgments
Phoenix Bridge Co. Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Nov-30-1908
Phoenix Bridge Co. v. United States - 211 U.S. 188 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Phoenix Bridge Co. v. United States, 211 U.S. 188 (1908) Phoenix Bridge Company v. United States No. 26 Argued November 12, 13, 1908 Decided November 30, 1908 211 U.S. 188 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus In a contract with the government for the reconstruction of a drawspan bridge which provides for completion before opening of navigation, permission to use false work during construction does not permit such use after the opening of navigation, and where the completion is delayed through negligence of the contractor until after opening of navigation and he is obliged by reason of destruction of the false work to substitute a lift span, he cannot recover the extra cost occasioned thereby. Quaere, and not decided, whether a receipt for final payment on a government contract, given without protest, amounts to an accord and satisfaction so as to be a bar to a claim for extra work in connectio...
Tag this Judgment!Wilder Vs. Inter-island Steam Navigation Co., Ltd.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Nov-30-1908
Wilder v. Inter-Island Steam Navigation Co., Ltd. - 211 U.S. 239 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Wilder v. Inter-Island Steam Navigation Co., Ltd., 211 U.S. 239 (1908) Wilder v. Inter-Island Steam Navigation Company, Limited No. 30 Submitted October 22, 1908 Decided November 30, 1908 211 U.S. 239 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII Syllabus Section 4536, Rev.Stat., providing that seamen's wage shall not be subject to attachment or arrestment, is to be construed in the light of other provision of the same title, and is to be liberally interpreted with a view to protect the seamen; and, as so construed, that section prevents the seizure of wages not only by attachment before, but execution after, judgment, and such wages cannot be seized under 2118 of the Law of Hawaii. Quaere, and not decided, whether the Act of June 9, 1874, c. 259, 18 Stat. 64, repealed 4536, Rev.Stat., so far as vessels engaged in the coastwise trade are concerned. 17 Haw. 416 affirmed. ...
Tag this Judgment!Prentis Vs. Atlantic Coast Line Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Nov-30-1908
Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co. - 211 U.S. 210 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210 (1908) Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Company Nos. 270-275 Argued October 16, 19, 20, 1908 Decided November 30, 1908 211 U.S. 210 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Syllabus So far as the federal Constitution is concerned, a state may, by constitutional provision, unite legislative and judicial powers in the same body. A judicial inquiry investigates, declares, and enforces liabilities as they stand on present or past facts and under existing laws, while legislation looks to the future and changes conditions, making new rules to be thereafter applied. The making of a rate by a legislative body, after hearing the interested parties, is not res judicata upon the validity of the rate when questioned by those parties in a suit in a court. Litigation does not arise until after legislation; nor can a...
Tag this Judgment!Bowers Hydraulic Dredging Co. Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Nov-30-1908
Bowers Hydraulic Dredging Co. v. United States - 211 U.S. 176 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Bowers Hydraulic Dredging Co. v. United States, 211 U.S. 176 (1908) Bowers Hydraulic Dredging Company v. United States No. 9 Argued November 11, 1908 Decided November 30, 1908 211 U.S. 176 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus Where words used in a contract are plain and unambiguous, expert testimony as to their commercial signification is not admissible for the purpose of destroying the plain and obvious intendment of a contract, and so held that, where a government dredging contract, by its terms, expressly excluded material which slid into the excavation from the slope outside of the stakes, expert testimony to show that the trade meaning of the words "measured in place" includes such sliding material if dredged was properly excluded. After the government has, against the contractor's protest, affixed a meaning to terms used in a contract, the contractor cannot reassert the same cl...
Tag this Judgment!Honolulu Rapid Transit Vs. Hawaii
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Nov-30-1908
Honolulu Rapid Transit v. Hawaii - 211 U.S. 282 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Honolulu Rapid Transit v. Hawaii, 211 U.S. 282 (1908) Honolulu Rapid Transit & Land Company v. Hawaii No. 412 Argued October 12, 1908 Decided November 30, 1908 211 U.S. 282 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII Syllabus The business of a transportation company operating under a franchise is not purely private, but is so affected by public interest that it is subject, within constitutional limits, to the governmental power of regulation. The power to regulate the operation of railroads includes regulation of the schedule for running trains; such power is legislative in character, and the legislature itself may exercise it or may delegate its execution in detail to an administrative body, and where the legislature has so delegated such regulation, the power of regulation cannot be exercised by the courts. The boundaries between the legislative and judicial fields should be carefully...
Tag this Judgment!Pickford Vs. Talbott
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Nov-30-1908
Pickford v. Talbott - 211 U.S. 199 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Pickford v. Talbott, 211 U.S. 199 (1908) Pickford v. Talbott No. 13 Argued October 26, 1908 Decided November 30, 1908 211 U.S. 199 ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus Crime and credulity are not the same, and mere neglect on the part of a prosecuting officer to investigate the character of witnesses on whose testimony an indictment is based is not tantamount to deliberate design, and in a suit for libel brought by such an officer against the owner of a journal charging him with blackmail, evidence as to whether he had made such investigation was properly excluded as irrelevant, the court not having excluded evidence as to the plaintiff's character. Page 211 U. S. 200 In this case, the court below rightly held the defendant responsible for the publication of the libel. 28 App.D.C. 498 affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion. Page 211 U. S. 204 MR. JUSTICE McKENNA delivered...
Tag this Judgment!American Sugar Refining Co. Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Nov-30-1908
American Sugar Refining Co. v. United States - 211 U.S. 155 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court American Sugar Refining Co. v. United States, 211 U.S. 155 (1908) American Sugar Refining Company v. United States No. 3 Argued November 11, 1908 Decided November 30, 1908 211 U.S. 155 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus A direct appeal from the Circuit Court will not lie where the only real substantial point is whether or not an officer of the United States has misconstrued a statute. The claim that the Secretary of the Treasury has exercised legislative power in promulgating, pursuant to 251, Revised Statutes, regulations concerning the collection of duties under the tariff law does not constitute a real and substantial dispute or controversy concerning the construction or application of the Constitution upon which the result depends, and a direct appeal will not lie to this Court under 5 of the Act of March 3, 1891, c. 517...
Tag this Judgment!Garfield Vs. Allison
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Nov-30-1908
Garfield v. Allison - 211 U.S. 264 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Garfield v. Allison, 211 U.S. 264 (1908) Garfield v. Allison Nos. 249, 250 Argued October 15, 18, 1908 Decided November 30, 1908 211 U.S. 264 ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus Decided on the authority of Garfield v. Goldsby, ante, p. 211 U. S. 249 . The facts are practically the same as those stated in the opinion of the preceding case. Page 211 U. S. 265 MR. JUSTICE DAY delivered the opinion of the Court. These cases were argued and submitted with the Goldsby case, No. 248, just decided. In the case of George A. Allison, a patent had been issued for his lands and duly recorded. In the case of Ida Allison, an allotment certificate had been issued. The relators are Cherokees, but the legislation herein involved is not different from that governing allotments to members of the Chickasaw Nation. The Allisons made application to the commission for admission to citizenship u...
Tag this Judgment!Garfield Vs. Goldsby
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Nov-30-1908
Garfield v. Goldsby - 211 U.S. 249 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Garfield v. Goldsby, 211 U.S. 249 (1908) Garfield v. Goldsby No. 248 Argued October 15, 18, 1908 Decided November 30, 1908 211 U.S. 249 ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus While acts of public officials which require the exercise of discretion may not be subject to review in the courts, if such acts are purely ministerial or are undertaken without authority, the courts have jurisdiction, and mandamus is the proper remedy. There is no place in our constitutional system for the exercise of arbitrary power, and the courts have power to restore the status of parties aggrieved by the unwarranted action of a public official. One who has acquired rights by an administrative or judicial proceeding cannot be deprived of them without notice and opportunity to be heard; such deprivation would be without due process of law. After the Secretary of the Interior has approved a list containing th...
Tag this Judgment!Cotton Vs. Hawaii
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Nov-30-1908
Cotton v. Hawaii - 211 U.S. 162 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Cotton v. Hawaii, 211 U.S. 162 (1908) Cotton v. Hawaii No. 7 Argued October 27, 1908 Decided November 30, 1908 211 U.S. 162 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII Syllabus The elementary rule that the power of this Court to review judgments under 709 Rev.Stat. and under statutes relating to review of judgments from territorial courts extends only to final judgments also governs appeals from the Supreme Court of Hawaii under 86 of the Act of April 30, 1900, c. 339, 31 Stat. 141, 158, and the amendatory Act of March 3, 1905, c. 1465, 33 Stat. 1035. The power of this Court to review the judgments of courts of the territories depends upon acts of Congress, and cannot be extended by territorial legislation. The decisions of the Supreme Court of Hawaii in this case, overruling Page 211 U. S. 163 exceptions and reversing order for new trial, were based on bill of exceptions which did not bring up the wh...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »