Us Supreme Court Court April 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.
Bogard Vs. Sweet
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-27-1908
Bogard v. Sweet - 209 U.S. 464 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Bogard v. Sweet, 209 U.S. 464 (1908) Bogard v. Sweet No. 156 Submitted March 6, 1908 Decided April 27, 1908 209 U.S. 464 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF OKLAHOMA Syllabus A decree of Supreme Court of Oklahoma cancelling a deed given to defendant below in furtherance of a scheme of development of property which had been abandoned, affirmed on the facts. 17 Okl. 40 affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court. There can be no doubt upon this record, confused though it be, as to the real nature of the present case. The substantial facts are these: in December, 1890, one Sweet, claiming to be owner of certain town lots covered by a patent to him from the State of Texas, of date December 10th, 1885, conveyed the same by deed (his wife uniting with him) to J. G. Bogard and other named persons. The lots were in the Town of Mangum, which was in wha...
Central R. Co. of New Jersey Vs. Jersey City
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-27-1908
Central R. Co. of New Jersey v. Jersey City - 209 U.S. 473 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Central R. Co. of New Jersey v. Jersey City, 209 U.S. 473 (1908) Central Railroad Company of New Jersey v. Jersey City No. 203 Argued April 15, 16, 1908 Decided April 27, 1908 209 U.S. 473 ERROR TO THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Syllabus "Jurisdiction,' as generally used in compacts between states, has a more limited sene than 'sovereignty." Under the agreement of 1833 between the States of New York and New Jersey, 4 Stat. 708, while exclusive jurisdiction is given to New York over the water of the Hudson River west of the boundary line fixed by the agreement, the land under such water remained subject to the sovereignty of New Jersey, and the jurisdiction given to New York over the water does not exclude the sovereign power of New Jersey to tax such land, nor does an exercise of that power deprive the owner of the land of his property without due process of law...
United States Vs. Chandler-dunbar Water Power Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-20-1908
United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co. - 209 U.S. 447 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., 209 U.S. 447 (1908) United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Company No. 59 Argued April 6-8, 1908 Decided April 20, 1908 209 U.S. 447 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Statutes of limitation with regard to land affect the right even if in terms only directed against the remedy. The Act of March 3, 1891, c. 561, 8, 26 Stat. 1099, providing that suit to vacate and annul patents theretofore issued shall only be brought within five years after the passage of the act, applies to a void patent, and where suit has not been brought within the prescribed period, a patent of public land, whether reserved or not, must be held good, and to have the same effect a though valid in the first place. On the admission of Michigan to the Union, the bed of the Sault Ste. Marie, whether strait or river, passed to ...
Ex Parte Nebraska
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-20-1908
Ex Parte Nebraska - 209 U.S. 436 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Ex Parte Nebraska, 209 U.S. 436 (1908) Ex Parte Nebraska No. 1, Original Argued March 17, 1908 Decided April 20, 1908 209 U.S. 436 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS Syllabus Mandamus will not lie to correct the decision of the Circuit Court that a party to the record -- in this case, a state -- is not an indispensable party to the suit and that a separable and removable controversy exists. Such a decision is within the jurisdiction and judicial discretion of the court, and can be reviewed by appeal after final judgment in the case. The mere presence on the record of a state as a party plaintiff will not defeat the jurisdiction of the federal court when it appears that the state has no real interest in the controversy, and it is the duty of the Circuit Court to ascertain whether the state is an actual party by consideration of the nature of the suit, and not by reference to the nominal parties. The Circuit Court having ...
In Re Moore
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-20-1908
In re Moore - 209 U.S. 490 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court In re Moore, 209 U.S. 490 (1908) In re Moore No. 17, Original Argued March 9, 1908 Decided April 20, 1908 209 U.S. 490 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS Syllabus In either case, the filing by the defendant of a petition for removal, the filing by the plaintiff after removal of an amended complaint, or the giving of a stipulation for continuance amounts to the acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. A next friend may select one of several tribunals in which the infant's case shall be tried, and may elect to accept the jurisdiction of the federal court to which the case may be removed. While consent cannot confer on a federal court jurisdiction of a case of which no federal court would have jurisdiction, either party may waive Page 209 U. S. 491 the objections that the case was not brought in, or removed to, the particular federal court provided by the statute, Nothing in Ex parte Wisner, 203 U. S. 449 , cha...
Liu Hop Fong Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-20-1908
Liu Hop Fong v. United States - 209 U.S. 453 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Liu Hop Fong v. United States, 209 U.S. 453 (1908) Liu Hop Fong v. United States No. 181 Argued March 18, 1908 Decided April 20, 1908 209 U.S. 453 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA Syllabus Under the provisions of 13 of the Act of September 13, 1888, c. 1015, 25 Stat. 476 and 3 of the Act of May 15, 1890, c. 60, 27 Stat. 26, the appeal given to a Chinaman from an order of deportation made by a commissioner is a trial de novo before the district judge to, which he is entitled before he can be ordered to be deported, and the order cannot be made on a transcript of proceedings before the commissioner. Page 209 U. S. 454 The facts are stated in the opinion. Page 209 U. S. 456 MR. JUSTICE DAY delivered the opinion of the Court. The plaintiff in error, Liu Hop Fong, on November 23, 1904, was arrested upon the sworn complaint of the United States district att...
Shawnee Compress Co. Vs. Anderson
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-13-1908
Shawnee Compress Co. v. Anderson - 209 U.S. 423 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Shawnee Compress Co. v. Anderson, 209 U.S. 423 (1908) Shawnee Compress Company v. Anderson No. 140 Argued March 2, 3, 1908 Decided April 13, 1908 209 U.S. 423 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF OKLAHOMA Syllabus Where the Supreme Court of the Territory of Oklahoma reversed the judgment of the trial court, the reviewing power of this Court is limited to determining whether there was evidence supporting the findings and whether the facts found were adequate to sustain the legal conclusions. In this case, the Supreme Court of the territory having found that a lease, being made to further an unlawful enterprise, was void as an unreasonable restraint of trade and as against public policy, this Court sustains the judgment, there being proof supporting the conclusions to the effect that the lessor company agreed to go out of the field of competition, not to enter that field again, and to rend...
Mccabe and Steen Construction Co. Vs. Wilson
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-06-1908
McCabe & Steen Construction Co. v. Wilson - 209 U.S. 275 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court McCabe & Steen Construction Co. v. Wilson, 209 U.S. 275 (1908) McCabe & Steen Construction Company v. Wilson No. 155 Argued March 5, 6, 1908 Decided April 6, 1908 209 U.S. 275 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF OKLAHOMA Syllabus Defendant who introduces testimony after the demurrer to plaintiff's evidence has been overruled waives any error to the ruling. Where the cause of action is against the members of a copartnership who afterwards incorporate their business, themselves taking practically all the stock and continuing without changing their relations with employees, the fact that the suit is commenced against the corporation was held under the circumstances of this case, and in view of the fact that no testimony was offered, to be within the provisions of the Oklahoma statute, 146, art. 8, c. 66, Wilson's Ann.Stat., requiring the court to disregard, and not reverse for, defec...
National Life Ins. Co. Vs. National Life Ins. Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-06-1908
National Life Ins. Co. v. National Life Ins. Co. - 209 U.S. 317 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court National Life Ins. Co. v. National Life Ins. Co., 209 U.S. 317 (1908) National Life Insurance Company of the United States of America v. National Life Insurance Company No. 162 Argued March 9, 1908 Decided April 6, 1908 209 U.S. 317 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Even if the power to review the determination of an executive department exists, where the complainant is merely appealing from the discretion of the department to the discretion of the court, the court should not interfere by injunction where the complainant has no clear legal right to the relief sought. Where a corporation has taken the same name as that of an older corporation, the fact that it has a greater quantity of mail matter does not justify the court in interfering with a special order of the Post Office Department directing the delivery of matter not addressed by street ...
Yazoo and Mississippi Valley R. Co. Vs. Vicksburg
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-06-1908
Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. Co. v. Vicksburg - 209 U.S. 358 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. Co. v. Vicksburg, 209 U.S. 358 (1908) Yazoo and Mississippi Valley Railroad Company v. Vicksburg No. 97 Argued February 28, 1908 Decided April 6, 1908 209 U.S. 358 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI Syllabus A corporation formed by the consolidation of several existing corporations is subject to the constitution and laws existing at the time of the consolidation in the same manner as all other corporations formed under the organic law of the state, and where the formation of the consolidated corporation is not imposed upon it, the constitution and laws in force become the law of its corporate being, and if they prohibit the exemption of property of corporations from taxation, such an exemption existing in favor of one of the constituent companies cannot be transferred to the consolidated corporation, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »