Us Supreme Court Court April 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.
Sand Filtration Corp. Vs. Cowardin
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-26-1909
Sand Filtration Corp. v. Cowardin - 213 U.S. 360 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court Sand Filtration Corp. v. Cowardin, 213 U.S. 360 (1909) Sand Filtration Corporation of America v. Cowardin No. 123 Argued April 6, 1909 Decided April 26, 1909 213 U.S. 360 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus In the absence of a clear showing of its incorrectness, this Court accepts the finding of the lower courts. The object of construction of a contract is to effectuate the intention of the parties in making it, and it should be interpreted in the light of the circumstances surrounding the parties at the time when it was made. Although contracts relating to the same subject may be dated the same day, they need not be construed together as one instrument if all the parties to both are not in privity. An agreement to pay a sum out of profits of a contract held, in this case, not to depend on whether profits were or were not realized by a subcontractor but only on ...
American Banana Co. Vs. United Fruit Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-26-1909
American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co. - 213 U.S. 347 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347 (1909) American Banana Company v. United Fruit Company No. 686 Argued April 12, 13, 1909 Decided April 26, 1909 213 U.S. 347 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus While a country may treat some relations between its own citizens a governed by its own law in regions subject to no sovereign, like the high seas, or to no law recognized as adequate, the general rule is that the character of an act as lawful or unlawful must be determined wholly by the law of the country where it is done. Page 213 U. S. 348 Law is a statement of the circumstances in which the public force will be brought to bear upon men through the courts, but the word commonly is confined to such prophecies or threats when addressed to persons living within the power of the courts. A statute will, as a general rule, be construed as intended t...
Chicago, B and Q R. Co. Vs. Williams
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-26-1909
CHICAGO, B & Q R. CO. v. WILLIAMS - 214 U.S. 492 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court CHICAGO, B & Q R. CO. v. WILLIAMS, 214 U.S. 492 (1909) 214 U.S. 492 CHICAGO, BURLINGTON, & QUINCY RAILWAY COMPANY v. EDGAR C. WILLIAMS. No. 154. Argued and submitted April 16, 1909. Decided April 26, 1909. Page 214 U.S. 492, 494 'And the circuit court of appeals for the eighth circuit further certifies that other questions of law which relate to the admission of evidence are presented by the assignment of errors in this case, and are pending for the decision of this court, but that the following questions of law are also presented by the assignment of errors, and their decision is indispensable to a determination of this case in this court; and that, to the end that this court may properly decide the issues of law presented, it desires the instruction of the Supreme Court of the United States upon the following questions of law: '1. In a contract between an owner of cattle and a railway company for ...
Leeds and CatlIn Co. Vs. Victor Talking Machine Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-19-1909
Leeds & Catlin Co. v. Victor Talking Machine Co. - 213 U.S. 301 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court Leeds & Catlin Co. v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 213 U.S. 301 (1909) Leeds and Catlin Company v. Victor Talking Machine Company No. 80 Argued January 15, 18, 1909 Decided April 19, 1909 213 U.S. 301 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Where grave questions of fact are presented by the proof on which a preliminary injunction has been granted in a patent case, this Court will not go beyond the action of the lower court and decide those questions and the case on the merits. A combination which produces by the cooperation of its constituents the result specified in the manner specified is a true mechanical device, and a valid combination. Page 213 U. S. 302 A patent may embrace more than one invention, Steinmetz v. Allen, 192 U. S. 543 , and it may embrace a process and the apparatus by which it is performed. Where dependent and related inven...
Boquillas Land and Cattle Co. Vs. Curtis
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-19-1909
Boquillas Land and Cattle Co. v. Curtis - 213 U.S. 339 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court Boquillas Land and Cattle Co. v. Curtis, 213 U.S. 339 (1909) Boquillas Land and Cattle Company v. Curtis No. 133 Argued April 7, 1909 Decided April 19, 1909 213 U.S. 339 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA Syllabus Under 3198, Rev.Stat. of Arizona of 1887, the common law doctrine of riparian rights does not now obtain in that territory, and, as held by the supreme court of the territory, the doctrine of appropriation was recognized and to some extent in force prior to and since 1833 in the State of Sonora, now a part of that territory. Page 213 U. S. 340 Confirmation of an estate doe not enlarge it, and where the original Mexican title did not carry riparian rights, the mere confirmation thereof by the United States doe not give such rights to the confirmee. The Legislative Act of Arizona, Howell's Code of 1864, c. 61, 7, adopting the common law of England was merely ...
Van Gieson Vs. Maile
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-19-1909
Van Gieson v. Maile - 213 U.S. 338 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court Van Gieson v. Maile, 213 U.S. 338 (1909) Van Gieson v. Maile No. 121 Submitted April 6, 1909 Decided April 19, 1909 213 U.S. 338 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII Syllabus However vexatious the conduct of a litigant may be, his property should not be sacrificed by reason of the court's action, and it appearing, in this case, that the existence of an order in regard to a sale of property under execution made the sale disastrous, it was proper, whether the order was valid or not, to set the sale aside and order a reconveyance on payment into court of the amount of the judgment. The facts are stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a bill in equity, brought by the appellee to set aside a sale on execution to Van Gieson. The bill alleges the bringing of an action for taxes by a collector, recovery of a judgment on default, and the issue of executi...
United States Vs. Evans
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-19-1909
United States v. Evans - 213 U.S. 297 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Evans, 213 U.S. 297 (1909) United States v. Evans No. 394 Submitted December 18, 1908 Decided April 19, 1909 213 U.S. 297 CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus Under 935 of the Code of the District of Columbia, Act of March 3, 1901, c. 854, 31 Stat. 1341, a writ of error will not lie from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of the District at the instance of the government to review a judgment based on a verdict of not guilty. When the judgment appealed from cannot be affected by the decision of the appellate court, the case becomes a moot one, and the appeal should be dismissed; hearing and deciding such an appeal for the purpose of establishing a rule of observance in cases subsequently arising is not an exercise of judicial power. Writ of certiorari to review 30 App.D.C. 58, quashed. The facts are stated in the opinion. Page 213 U. S. 299 MR. CHI...
Leeds and CatlIn Co. Vs. Victor Talking Machine Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-19-1909
Leeds & Catlin Co. v. Victor Talking Machine Co. - 213 U.S. 325 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court Leeds & Catlin Co. v. Victor Talking Machine Co. , 213 U.S. 325 (1909) Leeds & Catlin Company v. Victor Talking Machine Company (No. 2) No. 81 Argued January 18, 1909 Decided April 19, 1909 213 U.S. 325 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Leeds & Catlin Co. v. Victor Talking Machine Co., ante, p. 213 U. S. 301 , followed as to validity of Berliner patent for talking machines. There is a distinction between the article which a combination machine deals with and the constituent elements composing the combination, and while it may not be infringement to supply the unpatented article dealt with by the combination, it is infringement to make and supply an unpatented element, necessary for the operation of the combination. Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Paper Co., 152 U. S. 425 , distinguished. The combination itself, regardless of whether any o...
Macfadden Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-12-1909
Macfadden v. United States - 213 U.S. 288 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court Macfadden v. United States, 213 U.S. 288 (1909) Macfadden v. United States No. 14 Original Submitted April 5, 1909 Decided April 12, 1909 213 U.S. 288 APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Syllabus The object of the Act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, 26 Stat. 826, was to distribute the appellate jurisdiction of this Court between it and the circuit court of appeals, and to abolish the appellate jurisdiction of the circuit court. Although where a real constitutional question exists, a writ of error can be sued out directly from this Court to the trial court under 5 of the act of 1891, the right to do so is lost by taking an appeal to the circuit court of appeals. Robinson v. Caldwell, 165 U. S. 359 . The circuit court of appeals does not lose its jurisdiction of an appeal under 6 of the act of 1891 because questions were involved which would have warranted a di...
United States Vs. Mason
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-05-1909
United States v. Mason - 213 U.S. 115 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Mason, 213 U.S. 115 (1909) United States v. Mason No. 42 Argued March 5, 1909 Decided April 5, 1909 213 U.S. 115 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Syllabus On an appeal taken in a criminal case by the United States under the act of March 2, 1907, c. 2564, 34 Stat. 1246, from the ruling of the circuit court sustaining a special plea in bar, this Court is limited in its review to that ruling, and cannot consider other grounds of demurrer to the indictment. United States v. Keitel, 211 U. S. 370 , 211 U. S. 398 . Section 5509, Rev.Stat., does not embrace any felony or misdemeanor against a state of which, prior to the trial in federal court of the federal offense the defendants had been lawfully acquitted by a state court having full jurisdiction. Page 213 U. S. 116 As the federal court accepts the judgment of a state court construing the meaning...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »