Us Supreme Court Court February 1909 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.
Juragua Iron Co., Ltd. Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-23-1909
Juragua Iron Co., Ltd. v. United States - 212 U.S. 297 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court Juragua Iron Co., Ltd. v. United States, 212 U.S. 297 (1909) Juragua Iron Co., Ltd. v. United States No. 34 Argued December 2, 3, 1908 Decided February 23, 1909 212 U.S. 297 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus No action can be maintained against the United States for the destruction or taking of property under the Tucker Act of March 3, 1887, c. 359, 24 Stat. 505, unless the United States is bound by express or implied contract to compensate the owner therefor or unless the case be one not sounding in tort. Under the recognized rules of war, Cuba, being a part of Spain, was during the war of 1898-1899, enemy country, and all persons residing in Cuba pending the war were to be deemed enemies whatever their nationality, including citizens of the United States there domiciled and doing business. Property of citizens of the United States in Cuba was during the war with Spain to be regarded as...
Hammond Packing Co. Vs. Arkansas
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-23-1909
Hammond Packing Co. v. Arkansas - 212 U.S. 322 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court Hammond Packing Co. v. Arkansas, 212 U.S. 322 (1909) Hammond Packing Company v. Arkansas No. 54 Argued February 24, 25, 1908 Decided February 23, 1909 212 U.S. 322 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS Syllabus The right of a state to prevent foreign corporations from continuing to do business within its borders is the correlative of its right to exclude them therefrom, and, as this power is plenary, the state, so long as no contract is impaired, may exert it from consideration of acts done in another jurisdiction. If the power exists to revoke a permit, the question of motive is immaterial for the purpose of determining the constitutionality of the legislative action exerting the power. The difference between the extent of the power which the state may exert over the doing of business within its borders by an individual and that which it can exercise as to corporations furnishes a dist...
Harten Vs. Loeffler
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-23-1909
Harten v. Loeffler - 212 U.S. 397 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court Harten v. Loeffler, 212 U.S. 397 (1909) Harten v. Loeffler No. 91 Argued January 26, 1909 Decided February 23, 1909 212 U.S. 397 ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus In an action by the vendee for damages, although the amount recovered is less than $5,000, if the vendor not only disputes the judgment but claims more than $5,000 as balance of purchase money, this Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. Where its meaning is not clear, a contract is to be construed in the light of circumstances surrounding the parties when the contract was made and a practical interpretation given thereto. Lowber v. Bangs, 2 Wall. 728. "About" is a relative, and frequently ambiguous, term, the precise meaning of which is affected by circumstances, and oral evidence is not inconsistent with, or contradictory of, a written contract which simply ...
Mcdaniel Vs. Traylor
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-23-1909
McDaniel v. Traylor - 212 U.S. 428 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court McDaniel v. Traylor, 212 U.S. 428 (1909) McDaniel v. Traylor No. 70 Submitted January 12, 1909 Decided February 23, 1909 212 U.S. 428 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Syllabus Where a number of claim are so tied together by combination or conspiracy as to make the reliefs ought in regard thereto one claim, the aggregate amount of such claim will be the test of jurisdiction of the circuit court; but if the plaintiff fail to prove such combination or conspiracy, each claim must be regarded as separate, and, as to those which are less than $2,000, the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction. An attorney must be the agent of all to bind all, and a plaintiff charging a conspiracy between certain claimants and an administrator Page 212 U. S. 429 cannot satisfy the burden of proof which is on him to show that all conspired by showing that the same person was attorney fo...
The Eugene F. Moran
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-23-1909
The Eugene F. Moran - 212 U.S. 466 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court The Eugene F. Moran, 212 U.S. 466 (1909) The Eugene F. Moran * Nos. 87, 88 Argued January 22, 25, 1909 Decided February 23, 1909 212 U.S. 466 CERTIFICATES FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Where two tugs and two scows in tow of one of the tugs are all in fault for a collision, each of the four vessels is liable for an equal share of the damages, and the liability is to be so apportioned even if more than one of the vessels are owned by the same person. Sturgis v. Boyer, 24 How. 110, followed to the effect that a tug having control of a vessel in tow is solely responsible for damages to the other vessel caused by the tug alone. Fiction, not being a satisfactory ground for taking one man's property to satisfy another man's wrong, should not be extended. The fact that vessels are tied together in a flotilla does not make the flotilla a unit in proceedings in rem. In a proceeding...
Toy Toy Vs. Hopkins
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-23-1909
Toy Toy v. Hopkins - 212 U.S. 542 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court Toy Toy v. Hopkins, 212 U.S. 542 (1909) Toy Toy v. Hopkins No. 49 Argued December 9, 1909 Decided February 23, 1909 212 U.S. 542 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Syllabus After the circuit court of the United States has heard and passed on evidence affecting its jurisdiction, its judgment is open to review in the appellate court by writ of error, but the judgment cannot be attacked collaterally as absolutely void. Even though the circuit court erroneously retains jurisdiction of a criminal case against an allottee Indian, its judgment is not void, but should be corrected on appeal or by writ of error and cannot be attacked in habeas corpus proceedings. Page 212 U. S. 543 In re Heff, 197 U. S. 488 , as explained in In re Lincoln, 202 U. S. 543 , distinguished. The facts are stated in the opinion. Page 212 U. S. 546 MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered...
New York Central and Hudson River R. Co. Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-23-1909
New York Central & Hudson River R. Co. v. United States - 212 U.S. 500 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court New York Central & Hudson River R. Co. v. United States, 212 U.S. 500 (1909) New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company v. United States (No. 2) No. 69 Argued December 14, 15, 16, 1908 Decided February 23, 1909 212 U.S. 500 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus New York Central R. Co. v. United States, ante, p. 212 U. S. 481 , followed as to constitutionality of the Elkins Act of February 19, 1903, c. 708, 32 Stat. 847, and as to when offense of giving rebates in violation of the Interstate Commerce act are complete. The Elkins Act applies to rebates paid after it went into effect although paid in pursuance of an agreement, and on shipments, made prior to that date, the agreement being illegal when made. An indictment which definitely sets forth the elements of the offense of which it was intended to charge the...
Martinez Vs. Associacion De Senoras
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-23-1909
Martinez v. Associacion de Senoras - 213 U.S. 20 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court Martinez v. Associacion de Senoras, 213 U.S. 20 (1909) Martinez v. Associacion de Senoras Damas del Santo Asilo de Ponce No. 83 Argued January 21, 1909 Decided February 23, 1909 213 U.S. 20 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PORTO RICO Syllabus All relations between Spain and Porto Rico having been severed by the cession of that territory by the Treaty of Paris, a corporation organized under the laws of Spain for purely local and charitable purposes in Porto Rico is not to be regarded as a citizen of Spain within the meaning of the provisions of the Act of April 12, 1900, c.191, 31 Stat. 77, as amended by the Act of March 2, 1901, c. 812, 31 Stat. 953, relating to the jurisdiction of the District Court of the United States for Porto Rico, nor is such a corporation a citizen of the United States within the meaning of such provision; if it is a citizen of any country, it is a citi...
Nielsen Vs. California
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-23-1909
Nielsen v. California - 212 U.S. 315 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court Nielsen v. California, 212 U.S. 315 (1909) Nielsen v. California No. 593 Argued January 18, 19, 1909 Decided February 23, 1909 212 U.S. 315 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON Syllabus The concurrent jurisdiction given by Congress to the States of Oregon and Washington over the Columbia River by the Acts of March 2, 1853, c. 90, 10 Stat. 172, and of February 14, 1859, c. 33, 11 Stat. 383, extends to civil as well as criminal matters, and is broadly a grant of jurisdiction to each state. Wedding v. Meyler, 192 U. S. 573 . In determining the effect of a grant of concurrent jurisdiction, this Court confines itself to the precise questions presented. Where two states have concurrent jurisdiction, the one first acquiring jurisdiction may prosecute and punish for an act which is malum in se and punishable by the laws of both states, and the judgment is a finality, so that the person prosecuted can...
Laurel Oil and Gas Co. Vs. Morrison
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-23-1909
Laurel Oil & Gas Co. v. Morrison - 212 U.S. 291 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court Laurel Oil & Gas Co. v. Morrison, 212 U.S. 291 (1909) Laurel Oil and Gas Company v. Morrison No. 198 Argued October 14, 1908 Decided February 23, 1909 212 U.S. 291 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Where a statute provides for an appeal or a writ of error to a specific court, it must be regarded as a repeal of any previous statute providing for an appeal or a writ of error to another court. Brown v. United States, 171 U. S. 631 . Decisions of the Court of Appeals of the United States for the Indian Territory are final except as made subject to review by some express statutory provision. The provisions in 12 of the Act of March 3, 1905, c. 1479, 33 Stat. 1081, for appeals and writ of error from the United States Court in Indian Page 212 U. S. 292 Territory to the United States Court of Appeals in the Indian Territory, and from that court to the United Stat...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »