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.
Allemannia Fire Ins. Co. Vs. Firemen's Ins. Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-06-1908
Allemannia Fire Ins. Co. v. Firemen's Ins. Co. - 209 U.S. 326 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Allemannia Fire Ins. Co. v. Firemen's Ins. Co., 209 U.S. 326 (1908) Allemannia Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg v. Firemen's Insurance Company of Baltimore No. 180 Argued March 17, 18, 1908 Decided April 6, 1908 209 U.S. 326 ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus Reinsurance has a well known meaning, and, as the usual compact of reinsurance has been understood in the commercial world for many years, the liability of the reinsurer is not affected by the insolvency of the reinsured company or by the inability of the latter to fulfill its own contracts with the original insured, and, in this case, the compact, notwithstanding it refers to losses paid, will be construed to cover losses payable by the reinsured company, and, in a suit by the receiver of that company on the compact, the fact of its insolvency and nonpayment of the risks reinsured does not consti...
Ware and Leland Vs. Mobile County
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-06-1908
Ware & Leland v. Mobile County - 209 U.S. 405 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Ware & Leland v. Mobile County, 209 U.S. 405 (1908) Ware & Leland v. Mobile County Nos. 173, 174 Submitted March 10, 1908 Decided April 6, 1908 209 U.S. 405 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA Syllabus Contracts for sale of cotton for future delivery which do not oblige interstate shipment are not subject of interstate commerce, nor does the fact that a delivery may be made by mean of interstate carriage make them so, and a state tax on person engaged in buying and selling cotton for future delivery held in this case not to be a regulation of interstate commerce, and, as such, beyond the power of the state. Paul v. Virginia (insurance policy case), 8 Wall. 168, followed; Lottery Case, 188 U. S. 321 ; Rearick v. Pennsylvania, 203 U. S. 507 , distinguished. 146 Ala. 163 affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion. Page 209 U. S. 406 MR. JUSTICE DAY delivered the opinion of the...
Thompson Vs. Kentucky
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-06-1908
Thompson v. Kentucky - 209 U.S. 340 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Thompson v. Kentucky, 209 U.S. 340 (1908) Thompson v. Kentucky No. 160 Argued March 9, 1908 Decided April 6, 1908 209 U.S. 340 ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KENTUCKY Syllabus Due process of law does not assure to taxpayers that the court will sustain the interpretation given to a statute by executive officers or relief from the consequences of misinterpretation by either such officers or the court; one acting under a statute must take his chances that such action will be in accord with the final decision as to its proper interpretation; this is a hazard under every law, from which there is no security. It is within the power of the state to tax spirits in bonded warehouses and require the warehouseman to pay the same with interest after the taxes due to the United States government have been paid, and if the warehouseman is given a lien on the spirits for the taxes and interest paid by him, he is...
Stickney Vs. Kelsey
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-06-1908
Stickney v. Kelsey - 209 U.S. 419 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Stickney v. Kelsey, 209 U.S. 419 (1908) Stickney v. Kelsey No. 16 Submitted March 20, 1908 Decided April 6, 1908 209 U.S. 419 ERROR TO THE SURROGATES' COURT IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, STATE OF NEW YORK Syllabus A ruling by the highest court of the state sustaining the method of proving the existence of a law of that state presents no federal question. Where the language of the appellate court is ambiguous, if it may be taken as a declination to pass upon a question not necessary to the decision, this Court will not, in order to aid a technical and nonmeritorious defense, spell out a federal question, but it will resolve the ambiguity against the plaintiff in error who is bound, in order to give this Court jurisdiction, to clearly show that a federal right has been impaired. Writ of error to review 185 N.Y. 107 dismissed. The facts are stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE MOODY delivered the opinion of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›