Us Supreme Court Court March 1913 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.
The Fair Vs. Kohler Die and Specialty Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-24-1913
The Fair v. Kohler Die & Specialty Co. - 228 U.S. 22 (1913) U.S. Supreme Court The Fair v. Kohler Die & Specialty Co., 228 U.S. 22 (1913) The Fair v. Kohler Die & Specialty Company No. 169 Argued March 6, 1913 Decided March 24, 1913 228 U.S. 22 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus Where plaintiff relies upon infringement of his patent and nothing else, the cause, whether good or bad, is one under the laws of he United States, and the Circuit Court has jurisdiction, and jurisdiction cannot be defeated by matter set up in the answer. Page 228 U. S. 23 The party bringing the suit is master to decide what law he will rely upon. Jurisdiction is authority to decide either way, and, if it exits as an incident to a federal statutory cause of action, it cannot be defeated by a plea denying the merits. Defendant, specially pleading to plaintiff's bill for infringement of patent by selling below a stipulated price, denie...
United States Vs. George
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-24-1913
United States v. George - 228 U.S. 14 (1913) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. George, 228 U.S. 14 (1913) United States v. George No. 442 Argued February 26, 1913 Decided March 24, 1913 228 U.S. 14 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA Syllabus Quaere whether the Criminal Appeals Act of March 2, 1907, does not require an explicit declaration of the law upon which the indictment is based and a ruling on its validity and construction, and whether, on an appeal taken under that act. the government can seek to sustain the indictment as valid under other statutes than those relied upon in the trial court. An indictment for perjury under 5392, Rev.Stat., cannot be based on an affidavit not authorized or required by any law of the United States. Sections 161, 441, 453, 2246 and 2478, Rev.Stat., confer administrative power only on the Secretary of the Interior and the officers of the Land Department. They do not confer legislative power...
Knight Vs. Lane
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-17-1913
Knight v. Lane - 228 U.S. 6 (1913) U.S. Supreme Court Knight v. Lane, 228 U.S. 6 (1913) Knight v. Lane No. 163 Argued March 5, 6, 1913 Decided March 17, 1913 228 U.S. 6 I N ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus Until the legal title to public land passes from the government, inquiry as to all equitable rights comes within the cognizance of the Land Department. Brown v. Hitchock, 173 U. S. 473 . Until the matter is closed by final action, the proceedings of an officer of a department are as much open to review or reversal by himself or his successor as are the interlocutory decrees of a court open to review upon the final hearing. New Orleans v. Paine, 147 U. S. 261 . A decision of the Secretary of the Interior revoking his prior approval of an adjustment between contestants, one of whom is a minor, and which is not arbitrary or capricious, but given after a hearing and in the exercise of the discretion confided to him by law, cannot be ...
Abilene National Bank Vs. Dolley
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-17-1913
Abilene National Bank v. Dolley - 228 U.S. 1 (1913) U.S. Supreme Court Abilene National Bank v. Dolley, 228 U.S. 1 (1913) Abilene National Bank v. Dolley No. 175 Submitted March 5, 1913 Decided March 17, 1913 228 U.S. 1 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Syllabus The Kansas Bank Depositors' Guaranty Act is not unconstitutional as against national banks either because it discriminate against them in favor of state banks, impairs the obligation of exiting contracts, or deprives them of their property without due process of law. The statutes of the United States, where they do not prohibit competition with national banks, do not forbid competitors to succeed. Contracts made after a law is in force are made subject to it, and impose only such obligations and create only such property as the law permits. The constitutionality of this statute has already been upheld as to state banks in Assaria State Bank v. Dolley, 219 U. S. 121 ....
Marrone Vs. Washington Jockey Club
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-10-1913
Marrone v. Washington Jockey Club - 227 U.S. 633 (1913) U.S. Supreme Court Marrone v. Washington Jockey Club, 227 U.S. 633 (1913) Marrone v. Washington Jockey Club No. 59 Argued February 28, 1913 Decided March 10, 1913 227 U.S. 633 ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus The rule commonly accepted in this country from the English cases is that a ticket to a place of entertainment for a specified period does not create a right in rem. A contract binds the person of the maker, but does not create an interest in the property it concerns unless it also operates as a conveyance; a ticket of admission cannot have such effect, as it is not under seal and by common understanding it does not purport to have that effect. Specific performance of rights claimed under a mere ticket of admission to property cannot be enforced by self-help; the holder refused admission must sue for the breach. While there might be an irrevocable right of entry under a contra...
Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. Vs. Carl
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-10-1913
Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Carl - 227 U.S. 639 (1913) U.S. Supreme Court Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Carl, 227 U.S. 639 (1913) Kansas City Southern Railway Company v. Carl No. 16 Argued October 22, 1912 Decided March 10, 1913 227 U.S. 639 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS Syllabus Under the Carmack Amendment an interstate carrier comes under liability not only for its own default, but also for loss and damage upon the line of any connecting carrier. Atlantic Coast Line v. Riverside Mills, 219 U. S. 186 . Under the Carmack Amendment, a stipulation for limitation of liability, if unauthorized as to the initial carrier, is ineffective also as to a connecting carrier, and if valid as to the initial carrier, is valid as to a connecting carrier. The Carmack Amendment does not forbid a limitation of liability in case of loss or damage to a valuation agreed upon for the purpose of determining which of two alternative lawful rates shall apply to a par...
Baxter Vs. Buchholz-hill Transportation Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-10-1913
Baxter v. Buchholz-Hill Transportation Co. - 227 U.S. 637 (1913) U.S. Supreme Court Baxter v. Buchholz-Hill Transportation Co., 227 U.S. 637 (1913) Baxter v. Buchholz-Hill Transportation Company No. 882 Submitted February 24, 1913 Decided March 10, 1913 227 U.S. 637 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Syllabus The decree in a case is the dominant act, and cannot be given a greater effect than it purports to have and than would be warranted by the opinion that the court finally reached. The fact that a court, in dismissing a libel without prejudice to a new suit, expressed a decision on the merits, which it afterwards, on motion, excluded, does not make the decree as finally entered a decision on the merits. While a matter is still in its breast, the court may change its opinion and do so by changing the decree. Writ of error to review 206 N.Y. 173 dismissed. The facts are stated in the opinion. Memorandum opinion by direction of the court. By MR. JUSTIC...
Missouri, Kansas and Texas Ry. Co. Vs. Harriman
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-10-1913
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Harriman - 227 U.S. 657 (1913) U.S. Supreme Court Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Harriman, 227 U.S. 657 (1913) Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company v. Harriman No. 121 Argued January 20, 1913 Decided March 10, 1913 227 U.S. 657 ERROR TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS Syllabus Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491 , and Kansas City Southern Ry. v. Carl, ante, p. 227 U. S. 639 , followed to effect that the shipper who values his goods for the purpose of obtaining the lower of two duly published rates, based on valuation, is estopped from recovering a greater amount than his own valuation, and that the Carmack Amendment to the Hepburn Act of 1906 expresses the policy of Congress on this subject, and supersedes all state legislation thereon. It is not unreasonable, and in fact is the method approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission, in graduating freight ac...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›