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.
Beadles Vs. Smyser
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-06-1908
Beadles v. Smyser - 209 U.S. 393 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Beadles v. Smyser, 209 U.S. 393 (1908) Beadles v. Smyser No. 150 Argued March 4, 1908 Decided April 6, 1908 209 U.S. 393 ERROR TO AND APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF OKLAHOMA Syllabus While this Court cannot review judgment of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Oklahoma unless the amount involved exceeds $5,000, where the judgment also directly involve the validity of other judgments, the amount in controversy may be measured by the aggregate of such judgments. The principle of right and justice upon which the doctrine of estoppel in pais rests are applicable to municipal corporations. Where public property of a municipality cannot be seized on execution and the municipality enters into a valid agreement with judgment creditor to apply the judgment fund to judgments in order of entry and complies therewith, it cannot, after the expiration of the statutory period when a judgment becomes dorma...
United States Fid. and Guar. Co. Vs. Struthers Wells Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-06-1908
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Struthers Wells Co. - 209 U.S. 306 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Struthers Wells Co., 209 U.S. 306 (1908) United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company v. United States for the Use and Benefit of Struthers Wells Company No. 154 Argued March 5, 1908 Decided April 6, 1908 209 U.S. 306 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus There is always a strong presumption that a statute was not meant to act retrospectively, and it should never receive such a construction if susceptible of any other, nor unless the words are so clear, strong and imperative as to have no other meaning. The Act of February 24, 1905, c. 778, 33 Stat. 811, amending the Act of August 13, 1894, c. 280, 28 Stat. 278, is prospective, and does not relate to or affect actions based on rights of materialmen which had accrued prior to its passage, and such actions are properly brought under the act of 1894. The absolute tak...
Lipphard Vs. Humphrey
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-06-1908
Lipphard v. Humphrey - 209 U.S. 264 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Lipphard v. Humphrey, 209 U.S. 264 (1908) Lipphard v. Humphrey No. 188 Argued March 20, 1908 Decided April 6, 1908 209 U.S. 264 ERROR TO AND APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus Inability to read does not create a presumption that a testator does not know the contents of a paper declared by him to be his last will and duly executed as such. There is a presumption that the testator does know the contents of a will properly executed, which, while not conclusive, must prevail in the absence of proof of fraud, undue influence, or want of testamentary capacity, even where testator's inability to read is proved. In the absence of proof of want of testamentary capacity at the date of the will, declarations of the testator as to the contents thereof are inadmissible to prove lack of knowledge of such contents 28 App D.C. 355 affirmed. Loraine Lipphard, of the District of Columbia, die...
Thomas Vs. Taggart
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-06-1908
Thomas v. Taggart - 209 U.S. 385 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Thomas v. Taggart, 209 U.S. 385 (1908) Thomas v. Taggart No. 17 Argued January 17, 20, 1908 Decided April 6, 1908 209 U.S. 385 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Richardson v. Shaw, ante, p. 209 U. S. 365 , followed to the effect that a a general rule the broker is the pledgee and the customer the owner and pledgor of stock carried on margin. Where there is a repugnancy between the printed and written provision of a contract, the writing is presumed to express the specific intention of the parties, and will prevail. In this case, the written portion on the receipt given for stock, deposited with the broker as collateral on account, was held as specially applicable thereto, and that the broker's right to rehypothecate stocks under the printed portion of the contract was confined to the stocks purchased and carried on margin. If title to property is good as against the bank...
Hudson County Water Co. Vs. Mccarter
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-06-1908
Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter - 209 U.S. 349 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U.S. 349 (1908) Hudson County Water Company v. McCarter No. 184 Argued March 18, 19, 1908 Decided April 6, 1908 209 U.S. 349 ERROR TO THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Syllabus The boundary line between private rights of property, which can only be limited on compensation by the exercise of eminent domain, and the police power of the state, which can limit such rights for the public interest, cannot be determined by any formula in advance, but points in that line helping to establish it have been fixed by decisions of the Court that concrete cases fall on the nearer or farther side thereof. The state, as quasi -sovereign and representative of the interests of the public, has a standing in court to protect the atmosphere, the water, and the forests within its territory, irrespective of the assent or dissent of the private owners im...
Garzot Vs. De Rubio
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-06-1908
Garzot v. De Rubio - 209 U.S. 283 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Garzot v. De Rubio, 209 U.S. 283 (1908) Garzot v. De Rubio Nos. 141, 142, 604 Argued February 27, 28, 1908 Decided April 6, 1908 209 U.S. 283 APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PORTO RICO Syllabus The power of this Court to review judgments of the District Court of the United States for Porto Rico given by 35 of the Act of April 12, 1900, 31 Stat. 85, is the same as that to review judgments of the supreme courts of the territories, and is controlled by 2 of the Act of April 7, 1874, 18 Stat. 27; on writ of error, therefore, this Court is confined to such legal questions as necessarily arise on the face of the record, such as exceptions to rulings on the rejection and admission of testimony and the sufficiency of the findings to sustain the decree based thereon. In this case, the facts sustained the plaintiff's contention that she was a citizen of Spain, and as to that point there was no gro...
Lang Vs. New Jersey
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-06-1908
Lang v. New Jersey - 209 U.S. 467 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Lang v. New Jersey, 209 U.S. 467 (1908) Lang v. New Jersey No. 649 Argued April 6, 1908 Decided April 27, 108 209 U.S. 467 ERROR TO THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Syllabus It is within the power of the state to divide accused persons into two classes, those who are, and those who may be, accused, and, if there is no discrimination within the classes, a person in one of the classes is not denied the equal protection of the law because he does not have the same right of challenge of a grand juror as persons in the other class. As construed by the highest court of that state, the statute of New Jersey providing that challenges to grand jurors cannot be made after the juror has been sworn does not deprive a person accused after the grand jury has been impaneled and worn of the equal protection of the law because one accused prior thereto would have the right of challenge. 68 A. 210 affirme...
United States Vs. Cerecedo Hermanos Y Compania
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-06-1908
United States v. Cerecedo Hermanos y Compania - 209 U.S. 337 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Cerecedo Hermanos y Compania, 209 U.S. 337 (1908) United States v. Cerecedo Hermanos y Compania No. 152 Submitted March 5, 1908 Decided April 6, 1908 209 U.S. 337 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PORTO RICO Syllabus When the meaning of a statute is doubtful, the construction given by the department charged with its execution should be given great weight. Robertson v. Downing, 127 U. S. 607 ; United States v. Healy, 160 U. S. 136 . The reenactment by Congress, without change, of a statute which had previously received long continued executive construction, is an adoption by Congress of such construction. United States v. Falk, 204 U. S. 143 . Par. 296 of the Tariff Act of July 11, 1897, construed in accordance with Treasury decision. The facts are stated in the opinion. Page 209 U. S. 338 MR. JUSTICE McKENNA delivered the opinion of the...
Richardson Vs. Shaw
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-06-1908
Richardson v. Shaw - 209 U.S. 365 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Richardson v. Shaw, 209 U.S. 365 (1908) Richardson v. Shaw No. 122 Argued January 17, 20, 1908 Decided April 6, 1908 209 U.S. 365 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus While a broker who carries stocks for a customer on margin may not be strictly a pledgee at common law, he is essentially a pledgee and not the owner of the stock. Markham v. Jaudon, 41 N.Y. 235, approved. Neither the right of the broker to repledge stock carried on margin for a customer nor his right to sell such stock for his protection when the margin is exhausted alters the relation of the parties, is inconsistent with the customer's ownership, or converts the broker into the owner of the stock. Page 209 U. S. 366 A certificate of stock is not the property itself, but the evidence of the property in the shares, and, as one share of stock is not different in kind or quality from every other share of the sam...
Longyear Vs. Toolan
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-06-1908
Longyear v. Toolan - 209 U.S. 414 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Longyear v. Toolan, 209 U.S. 414 (1908) Longyear v. Toolan No. 177 Argued March 13, 1908 Decided April 6, 1908 209 U.S. 414 ERROR O THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Syllabus An owner of property must be held to knowledge that failure to pay duly assessed taxes will be followed by sale, and if the statute gives him full opportunity to be heard as to the assessment on definite days, and definitely fixes the time for payment and the time for sale in case of default, so that he cannot fail, if duly diligent, to learn of the pendency of the sale, he is not denied due process of law because the notice of sale is by publication, and not by personal service, and the validity of a tax sale under the law of Michigan sustained. 144 Mich. 55 affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion. Page 209 U. S. 415 MR. JUSTICE MOODY delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Michi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »