Us Supreme Court Court December 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.
United States Vs. Herr
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-14-1908
United States v. Herr - 211 U.S. 406 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Herr, 211 U.S. 406 (1908) United States v. Herr No. 292 Argued October 15, 1908 Decided December 14, 1908 211 U.S. 406 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Syllabus Decided on the authority of United States v. Keitel, ante, p. 211 U. S. 370 . 157 F. 396 affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. The indictment in this case contains two counts, each purporting to charge the commission of an offense in violation of Rev.Stat., 4746, as amended. The substantial charge in each count is that the defendant unlawfully procured a named person, in connection with a preferential entry of coal lands, to make and present to the Secretary of the Interior, by and through the register and receiver of the United States land office at Durango, Colorado, an affidavit at purchase, which was false and fraudul...
Fitchie Vs. Brown
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-07-1908
Fitchie v. Brown - 211 U.S. 321 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Fitchie v. Brown, 211 U.S. 321 (1908) Fitchie v. Brown No. 47 Argued October 29, 30, 1908 Decided December 7, 1908 211 U.S. 321 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII Syllabus Executors, parties to the action but who have not appealed, cannot be heard against a decree construing the will and determining the validity of trusts on an appeal taken by other parties. The common law having been made applicable by statute in Hawaii, and there being no other statute regulating the subject, trusts must be valid as at common law, and the utmost extent of a testamentary trust is limited by ascertained lives in being at the time of its creation, selected by the testator but not necessarily having an interest in the property, and for twenty-one years after the death of the last survivor which must be ascertainable by reasonable evidence. The testator's intent is to be sought and carried out if not illegal, and...
North American Cold Storage Co. Vs. Chicago
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-07-1908
North American Cold Storage Co. v. Chicago - 211 U.S. 306 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court North American Cold Storage Co. v. Chicago, 211 U.S. 306 (1908) North American Cold Storage Company v. Chicago No. 28 Argued November 13, 1908 Decided December 7, 1908 211 U.S. 306 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus A municipal ordinance properly adopted under a power granted by the state legislature is to be regarded as an act of the state within the Fourteenth Amendment. Where the Circuit Court has sustained the demurrer to the complaint because the case does not involve the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States and has given a certificate to Page 211 U. S. 307 that effect, and complainant has also appealed directly to this Court under 5 of the Act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, 26 Stat. 826, if this Court finds that jurisdiction exists, the appeal can be heard without resort to the certificate, an...
Miller and Lux, Inc. Vs. East Side Canal and Irrig. Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-07-1908
Miller & Lux, Inc. v. East Side Canal & Irrig. Co. - 211 U.S. 293 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Miller & Lux, Inc. v. East Side Canal & Irrig. Co., 211 U.S. 293 (1908) Miller & Lux, Incorporated v. East Side Canal & Irrigation Company No. 518 Submitted October 13, 1908 Decided December 7, 1908 211 U.S. 293 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus While jurisdiction of the circuit court exists even if complainant's motive in acquiring citizenship was to invoke that jurisdiction, the citizenship must be real and actually acquired with the purpose of establishing a permanent domicil. Morris v. Gilmer, 129 U. S. 315 . Where the complainant corporation was organized for the sole purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of the circuit court, and any decree in its favor would be really under the control, and for the benefit of, another corporation of the same state as defendant, the suit should be dismissed as one in which th...
ingersoll Vs. Coram
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-07-1908
Ingersoll v. Coram - 211 U.S. 335 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Ingersoll v. Coram, 211 U.S. 335 (1908) Ingersoll v. Coram No. 8 Argued March 11, 12, 1908 Decided December 7, 1908 211 U.S. 335 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT Syllabus In this case, the Circuit Court had jurisdiction under the provision of the Act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 470, 472, to enforce a lien for professional services on property within the district, although some of the defendants did not reside therein. An objection to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court based on the residence of defendant, although diverse citizenship exists, may be waived, and is waived if not seasonably made. In re Moore, 209 U. S. 490 . Page 211 U. S. 336 A decree in a suit in the Circuit Court between citizens of different states is not violative of 720, Rev.Stat., because it determines liens on distributive shares in an estate under administration in a state probate court an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›