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.
Bradford Vs. Morrison
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-23-1909
Bradford v. Morrison - 212 U.S. 389 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court Bradford v. Morrison, 212 U.S. 389 (1909) Bradford v. Morrison No. 60 Argued January 7, 1909 Decided February 23, 1909 212 U.S. 389 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA Syllabus The title of a locator to a mining claim located under 2322, Rev.Stat., is not only property, but property which, in addition to being sold, transferred and mortgaged, is also capable of being inherited without infringing the title of the United States. Under the law of Arizona, in force at the time, real property upon which a judgment was a lien included mining claims. Page 212 U. S. 390 Title to a mining claim acquired by sale under lien of judgment is subject to forfeiture if conditions subsequent, such a the doing of necessary work, are not performed. Black v. Elkhorn, 163 U. S. 445 , holding that widow's dower did not attach under the law of Montana to the mining claim involved in that case, distinguished. ...
Railroad Comm'n Vs. Cumberland Tel. and Tel. Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-23-1909
Railroad Comm'n v. Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co. - 212 U.S. 414 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court Railroad Comm'n v. Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co., 212 U.S. 414 (1909) Railroad Commission of Louisiana v. Cumberland Telephone and Telegraph Company No. 182 Argued October 20, 21, 1908 Decided February 23, 1909 212 U.S. 414 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Syllabus Where diverse citizenship exists, complainant may assert in a suit in the circuit court of the United States that rates fixed by ordinance are so low as to be confiscatory under the Fourteenth Amendment or unreasonable or unjust under the provisions of state law. Rates fixed by the body having jurisdiction, after investigation based on reports of the corporation rendering the service, are prima facie fair and valid and the burden of proof is on the complainant attacking them to how that they are confiscatory or unreasonable. Where a public service corporation raises more ...
American Express Co. Vs. Mullins
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-23-1909
American Express Co. v. Mullins - 212 U.S. 311 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court American Express Co. v. Mullins, 212 U.S. 311 (1909) American Express Company v. Mullins No. 77 Argued January 14, 15, 1909 Decided February 23, 1909 212 U.S. 311 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF KENTON COUNTY, STATE OF KENTUCKY Syllabus Where, in the state court, defendant distinctly claimed that a recovery would be prevented if full faith and credit were given to a judgment of the courts of another state, and this claim is expressly denied, this Court has jurisdiction to review under 709, Rev.Stat. The duty of the carrier to safely carry and promptly deliver to the consignee the goods entrusted to it does not require it to forcibly resist judicial proceedings in the courts of the state into or through which the goods are carried. While the carrier may appear and contest the validity of a seizure under judicial process of goods in its custody, if it seasonably notify the owner and call upon him to def...
New York Central R. Co. Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-23-1909
New York Central R. Co. v. United States - 212 U.S. 481 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court New York Central R. Co. v. United States, 212 U.S. 481 (1909) New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company v. United States No. 57 Argued December 14, 15, 16, 1908 Decided February 23, 1909 212 U.S. 481 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus Congress can impute to a corporation the commission of certain criminal offenses and subject it to criminal prosecution therefor. In actions for tort, a corporation may be held responsible for damages for the acts of its agent within the scope of his employment, Lake Shore & Michigan Southern R. Co. v. Prentice, 147 U. S. 101 , even if done wantonly, recklessly or against the express orders of the principal. A corporation is responsible for acts not within its agent's powers, strictly construed, but assumed to be done by him when employing authorized powers, and in such a case no written a...
Santos Vs. Roman Catholic Church
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-23-1909
Santos v. Roman Catholic Church - 212 U.S. 463 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court Santos v. Roman Catholic Church, 212 U.S. 463 (1909) Santos v. Roman Catholic Church No. 73 Submitted January 13, 1909 Decided February 23, 1909 212 U.S. 463 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Syllabus A finding by the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands that the parties sued as defendants do not constitute a judicial entity such as a cofradia is not open to reexamination in this Court. Where the reasons of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands for refusing to grant a new trial on ground of newly discovered evidence Page 212 U. S. 464 do not appear, their sufficiency must be presumed, and the question is not open in this Court. The Roman Catholic Church has a legal personality and the capacity to hold property in the insular possessions of the United States, and this right is not affected by the fact that the property was acquired by gift or from the public funds. Pon...
Johnson Vs. Mueser
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-23-1909
Johnson v. Mueser - 212 U.S. 283 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court Johnson v. Mueser, 212 U.S. 283 (1909) Johnson v. Mueser No. 67 Argued January 12, 1909 Decided February 23, 1909 212 U.S. 283 ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus Frasch v. Moore, 211 U. S. 1 , followed to effect that decisions of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia in appeals from the Commissioner of Patents are not reviewable by this Court. Writ of error to review 29 App.D.C. 61 dismissed, and certiorari denied. The facts are stated in the opinion. Page 212 U. S. 284 MR. CHIEF JUSTICE Fuller delivered the opinion of the Court. This was a proceeding of interference in which the examiner of interferences awarded priority to Mueser. This decision was in turn affirmed by the examiners-in-chief and by the Commissioner. From the decision of the Commissioner, an appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, and that court affirmed the decision of ...
North Shore Boom and Driving Co. Vs. Nicomen Boom Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-23-1909
North Shore Boom & Driving Co. v. Nicomen Boom Co. - 212 U.S. 406 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court North Shore Boom & Driving Co. v. Nicomen Boom Co., 212 U.S. 406 (1909) North Shore Boom & Driving Company v. Nicomen Boom Company No. 107 Argued January 29, February 1, 1909 Decided February 23, 1909 212 U.S. 406 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON Syllabus A state, in the absence of any statute by Congress, has plenary power in regard to navigable streams wholly within its boundaries, and obstructions in such streams, in the absence of statute, constitute no offense against the United States, and whether obstructions are unlawful under state law is not a federal question. Willamette Iron Bridge Co. v. Hatch, 125 U. S. 1 . Where a federal law is applicable requiring consent of the federal government, there is concurrent or joint jurisdiction of the state and national governments over the erection of structures obstructing navigation of a navigable stream wholl...
Texas and Pacific Ry. Co. Vs. Bourman
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-23-1909
Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Bourman - 212 U.S. 536 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Bourman, 212 U.S. 536 (1909) Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. Bourman No. 56 Argued January 6, 7, 1909 Decided February 23, 1909 212 U.S. 536 I N ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The engineer of a train and the section foreman are fellow-servants of a section hand, and the latter cannot recover against the employer for an injury occurring through the negligence of either of the former. Northern Pacific Railroad v. Egeland, 163 U. S. 93 , distinguished. 160 F. 452 reversed. The facts are stated in the opinion. Page 212 U. S. 538 MR. JUSTICE MOODY delivered the opinion of the Court. The defendant in error, hereafter called the plaintiff, brought an action in the circuit court of the United States against the plaintiff in error, hereafter called the defendant, to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been suffered through ...
Davidson Bros. Marble Co. Vs. Gibson
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-23-1909
Davidson Bros. Marble Co. v. Gibson - 213 U.S. 10 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court Davidson Bros. Marble Co. v. Gibson, 213 U.S. 10 (1909) Davidson Bros. Marble Company v. Gibson No. 78 Argued January 15, 1909 Decided February 23, 1909 213 U.S. 10 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus U.S. Fidelity Co. v. Struthers Wells Co., 209 U. S. 306 , followed to effect that 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 control actions based on rights of materialmen already accrued, but that such actions are controlled by the act of 1894. As the Act of August 13, 1894, c. 280, 28 Stat. 278, does not specify in which federal court the action of a materialman claiming rights Page 213 U. S. 11 thereunder must be brought, the question of jurisdiction is settled by the general statutory provisions relating thereto; and, under the Act of Mar...
Fritzlen Vs. Boatmen's Bank
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-23-1909
Fritzlen v. Boatmen's Bank - 212 U.S. 364 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court Fritzlen v. Boatmen's Bank, 212 U.S. 364 (1909) Fritzlen v. Boatmen's Bank No. 99 Argued January 28, 29, 1909 Decided February 23, 1909 212 U.S. 364 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS Syllabus If, after an order to remand has been made, it results, from the subsequent pleadings or conduct of the parties, that the cause is removable, a second application to remove can be made, and the right to make it is not controlled by the previous remanding order; nor is the granting of the order to remove under such circumstances a refusal to give effect to such previous order to remand. In this case, held that in an action to foreclose, where the junior encumbrancer, as plaintiff, joined the senior encumbrancer as a defendant and attacked the validity of his lien, a did the owner of the property, also a defendant, a separable controversy exited between the senior encumbrancer, on the one side, and the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »