Us Supreme Court Court May 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.
Brown Vs. Fletcher's Estate
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-18-1908
Brown v. Fletcher's Estate - 210 U.S. 82 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Brown v. Fletcher's Estate, 210 U.S. 82 (1908) Brown v. Fletcher's Estate No. 220 Argued April 30, 1908 Decided May 18, 1908 210 U.S. 82 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Syllabus The full faith and credit clause of the federal Constitution does not preclude the court of a state in which the judgment of a sister state is presented from inquiry as to jurisdiction of the court by which the judgment is rendered, nor is this inquiry precluded by a recital in the record of jurisdictional facts. Every state has exclusive jurisdiction over property within its borders, and where testator has property in more than one state, each state has jurisdiction over the property within its limits, and can, in its own courts, provide for the disposition thereof in conformity with its laws. There is no privity between the executor and an administrator with the will annexed appointed in another state which ma...
Galveston, H. and S.A. Ry. Co. Vs. Texas
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-18-1908
Galveston, H. & S.A. Ry. Co. v. Texas - 210 U.S. 217 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Galveston, H. & S.A. Ry. Co. v. Texas, 210 U.S. 217 (1908) Galveston, Harrisburg and San Antonio Railway Company v. Texas No. 207 Argued April 21, 22, 1908 Decided May 18, 1908 210 U.S. 217 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS Syllabus The statute of Texas of April 17, 1905, c. 141, imposing a tax upon railroad companies equal to one percent of their gross receipts is, as to those companies whose receipts include receipts from interstate business, a burden on interstate commerce, and as such violative of the commerce clause of the federal Constitution. Philadelphia & Southern Mail S.S. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S. 326 followed; Maine v. Grand Trunk Railway Co., 142 U. S. 217 , distinguished, and held that the latter case did not overrule the former. Neither the state courts nor the legislatures, by giving a tax a particular name or by the use of some form of words, can take ...
Boston and Maine R. Vs. Gokey
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-18-1908
Boston & Maine R. v. Gokey - 210 U.S. 155 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Boston & Maine R. v. Gokey, 210 U.S. 155 (1908) Boston and Maine Railroad v. Gokey No. 198 Argued April 14, 1908 Decided May 18, 1908 210 U.S. 155 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus A defendant defeated on the merits after having specially assailed the jurisdiction of the circuit court because of defective writ and service is not bound to bring the jurisdictional question directly to this Court on certificate under 5 of the Act of March 3, 1891; he may take the entire case to the circuit court of appeals, and, on such appeal, it is the duty of that court to decide all questions in the record, and, if jurisdiction was originally invoked for diversity of citizenship, the decision would be final except as subject to review by this Court on certiorari. Where the circuit court of appeals has refused to decide a question, this Court may either remand with instructions or ...
St. Louis Vs. United Railways Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-18-1908
St. Louis v. United Railways Co. - 210 U.S. 266 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court St. Louis v. United Railways Co., 210 U.S. 266 (1908) St. Louis v. United Railways Company No 193-195 Argued March 20, 23, 1908 Decided May 18, 1908 210 U.S. 266 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI Syllabus While a state, or a municipal corporation acting under the authority of the state, may deprive itself by contract of its lawful power to impose certain taxes or license fees, such deprivation only follows the use of clear and unambiguous terms; any doubt in the interpretation of the alleged contract is fatal to the exemption. The fact that a street railway company has agreed to pay for the use of the streets of a city for a given period does not, in the absence of unequivocal terms to that effect, create an inviolable contract within the meaning and protection of the contract clause of the federal Constitution which will prevent the exaction of ...
Farrell Vs. Lockhart
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-18-1908
Farrell v. Lockhart - 210 U.S. 142 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Farrell v. Lockhart, 210 U.S. 142 (1908) Farrell v. Lockhart No. 170 Submitted March 9, 1908 Decided May 18, 1908 210 U.S. 142 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH Syllabus Ground embraced in a mining location may become part of the public domain so as to be subject to another location before the expiration of the statutory period for performing annual labor if, at the time when the second location is made, there has been an actual abandonment of the claim by the first locator. Lavignino v. Uhlig, 19,8 U.S. 443, qualified so as not to exclude the right of a subsequent locator on an adverse claim to test the lawfulness of a prior location of the same ground upon the contention that, at the time such prior location was made, the ground embraced therein was covered by a valid and subsisting mining claim. Where three mining locations cover the same ground and the senior locator, after forfeiture, does no...
Reuben Quick Bear Vs. Leupp
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-18-1908
Reuben Quick Bear v. Leupp - 210 U.S. 50 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Reuben Quick Bear v. Leupp, 210 U.S. 50 (1908) Reuben Quick Bear v. Leupp No 669 Argued February 26, 27, 1908 Decided May 18, 1908 210 U.S. 50 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus A statutory limitation on expenditures of the public funds does not, in the absence of special provision to that effect, relate to expenditures of treaty and trust funds administered by the government for the Indians. The provisions in the Indian Appropriation Acts of 1895, 1896, 1897, 1898 and 1899 limiting and forbidding contracts for education of Indians in sectarian schools relate only to appropriations of public moneys raised by general taxation from persons of all creeds and faith and gratuitously appropriated, and do not relate to the disposition of the tribal and trust funds which belong to the Indians -- in this case, the Sioux Tribe -- themselves, and the officers of the government will n...
In Re Wood and Henderson
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-18-1908
In re Wood & Henderson - 210 U.S. 246 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court In re Wood & Henderson, 210 U.S. 246 (1908) In re Wood & Henderson No. 167 Submitted March 6, 1908 Decided May 18, 1908 210 U.S. 246 CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Congress has the right to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States, and having given jurisdiction to a particular court to administer the property, that court may, in some proper way, call upon all parties interested to appear and assert their rights. The bankruptcy court, or its referee, in which the bankruptcy proceedings are pending, has jurisdiction under 60 d of the Bankruptcy Act to reexamine, on petition of the trustee, the validity of a payment or transfer made by the bankrupt in contemplation of bankruptcy to an attorney for legal services to be rendered by him, and to ascertain and adjudge what is a reasonable amount to be allowed for such services and to direct...
Old Dominion Copper Mining Co. Vs. Lewisohn
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-18-1908
Old Dominion Copper Mining Co. v. Lewisohn - 210 U.S. 206 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Old Dominion Copper Mining Co. v. Lewisohn, 210 U.S. 206 (1908) Old Dominion Copper Mining and Smelting Company v. Lewisohn No. 20 Argued April 16, 20, 1908 Decided May 18, 1908 210 U.S. 206 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus A corporation remains unchanged and unaffected in its identity by changes in its members, nor does it change its identity by increasing its capital stock, and its legal action is equally binding on itself after such an increase as it was prior thereto. A corporation should not be allowed to disregard its assent previously given in order to charge a single member with the whole results of a transaction to which the greater part -- in this case, thirteen-fifteenths -- of its stock were parties for the benefit of the guilty and innocent alike. 148 F. 1020 affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion. Page 210 U. S. 209 MR. JUS...
La Bourgogne
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-18-1908
La Bourgogne - 210 U.S. 95 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court La Bourgogne, 210 U.S. 95 (1908) La Bourgogne No. 33 Argued November 1, 1907 Decided May 18, 1908 210 U.S. 95 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus The decree of the district court in a proceeding for limitation of liability adjudging that the petitioner is entitled to the limitation and declaring that one class of claims cannot be proved against the fund and remitting all questions concerning other claims for proof prior to final decree is interlocutory, and an appeal to the Circuit Court does not lie therefrom, but from the subsequent decree adjudicating all the claims filed against the fund. This Court will not disturb the concurrent findings of fact of both the courts below unless 80 unwarranted by the evidence as to be clearly erroneous, and a finding that the rate of speed of a vessel on the high seas during a fog was immoderate under the international rules will not be disturbe...
Fauntleroy Vs. Lum
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-18-1908
Fauntleroy v. Lum - 210 U.S. 230 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230 (1908) Fauntleroy v. Lum No. 215 Argued April 27, 28, 1908 Decided May 18, 1908 210 U.S. 230 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Syllabus A judgment is conclusive as to all the media concludendi, and it cannot be impeached either in or out of the state by showing that it was based on a mistake of law. A judgment of a court of a state in which the cause of action did not arise, but based on an award of arbitration had in the state in which the cause did arise, is conclusive, and, under the full faith and credit clause of the federal Constitution, must be given effect in the latter state, notwithstanding the award was for a claim which could not, under the laws of that state, have been enforced in any of its courts. 80 Miss. 757 reversed. The facts are stated in the opinion. Page 210 U. S. 233 MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an a...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »