Court : US Supreme Court
Union Trust Co. v. Grosman - 245 U.S. 412 (1918) U.S. Supreme Court Union Trust Co. v. Grosman, 245 U.S. 412 (1917) Union Trust Co. v. Grosman No. 106 Argued December 20, 21, 1917 Decided January 7, 1918 245 U.S. 412 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus While a husband and wife, domiciled in Texas, were temporarily in Illinois, the former executed his note and the latter her continuing guaranty of payment. Assuming that the guaranty would have been enforced in Illinois, held that comity did not call for it enforcement by the court of Texas against the wife's separate property there if contrary to the public policy of Texas, for it is one thing for a court to decline to be an instrument for depriving citizens belonging to the jurisdiction of their property in way not intended by the law that govern them, another to deny its Page 245 U. S. 413 offices to enforce obligations good by the lex domicilii and the lex loci contractus agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Rosen v. United States - 245 U.S. 467 (1918) U.S. Supreme Court Rosen v. United States, 245 U.S. 467 (1918) Rosen v. United States Nos. 365, 438 Argued December 12, 1917 Decided January 7, 1918 245 U.S. 467 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Under the modern rule, supported both by legislation and by the very great weight of judicial authority, all persons of competent understanding are permitted to testify to relevant facts within their knowledge, and the former common law rule disqualifying witnesses convicted of crime will no longer be followed, but such conviction will be given due consideration in determining the credibility and weight of their testimony. In a criminal trial in a United States district court in New York, a witness, previously sentenced and imprisoned under the law of that state for the crime of forgery in the second degree, was competent to testify for the United States against his codefendants, irrespective of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Cincinnati v. Cincinnati & Hamilton Traction Co. - 245 U.S. 446 (1918) U.S. Supreme Court Cincinnati v. Cincinnati & Hamilton Traction Co., 245 U.S. 446 (1918) Cincinnati v. Cincinnati & Hamilton Traction Company No. 10 Argued January 24, 25, 1916 Restored to docket for reargument June 12, 1916 Reargued October 26, 27, 1916 Restored to docket for reargument May 7, 1917 Reargued October 17, 18, 1917 Decided January 7, 1918 245 U.S. 446 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Syllabus Corporations of Ohio claimed the right to operate a street railway in Cincinnati according to the terms of various grants, etc., under which it had been built in sections or links. A revocable ordinance of the city council, after reciting that, as to portions of the streets so occupied, "alleged grants" had expired, and on others there never had been any grants and the companies had no longer any right to occupy the same, provided that the compan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
SEARS v. INHABITANTS OF TOWN OF NAHANT - 248 U.S. 543 (1918) U.S. Supreme Court SEARS v. INHABITANTS OF TOWN OF NAHANT , 248 U.S. 543 (1918) 248 U.S. 543 Frederick R. SEARS et al., plaintiffs in error, v. INHABITANTS OF THE TOWN OF NAHANT, etc. No. 61. Supreme Court of the United States December 23, 1918 Mr. Burton E. Eames, of Boston, Mass., for plaintiffs in error. Messrs. Robert G. Dodge and Arthur D. Hill, both of Boston, Mass., for defendants in error. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of (1) McCain v. Des Moines, 174 U.S. 168, 181 , 19 S. Sup. Ct. 644; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Ann Arbor R. R. Co., 178 U.S. 239, 243 , 20 S. Sup. Ct. 867; Hull v. Burr, 234 U.S. 712, 720 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 892; Norton v. Whiteside, 239 U.S. 144, 147 , 36 S. Sup. Ct. 97; (2) Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U.S. 89, 100 , 25 S. Sup. Ct. 727; Empire State-Idaho Mining Co. v. Hanley, 205 U.S. 225, 232 , 27 S. Sup. Ct. 476; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U.S. 71...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Southern Pacific Co. v. Stewart - 245 U.S. 562 (1918) U.S. Supreme Court Southern Pacific Co. v. Stewart, 245 U.S. 562 (1918) Southern Pacific Co. v. Stewart No. 348 Petition for rehearing. Granted and former dismissal vacated January 28, 1918 245 U.S. 562 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The dismissal ( ante 245 U. S. 359 ) having resulted from a misunderstanding, due to an incomplete printed record and to statements in the briefs, rehearing is granted, the dismissal set aside, and the cause restored to the docket. Memorandum opinion by direction of the Court by MR. JUSTICE DAY. The opinion in this case was handed down on December 17, 1917. The cause was submitted on a motion to dismiss, which was sustained. The printed record did not contain the proceedings upon the application to remove the cause from the state court. The briefs of counsel upon both sides, upon which the case was submitted, stated that the case was removed because...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Stadelman v. Miner - 246 U.S. 311 (1918) U.S. Supreme Court Stadelman v. Miner, 246 U.S. 311 (1918) Stadelman v. Miner No. 644 Petition for rehearing Leave to file granted, petition allowed and former dismissal vacated March 18, 1918 246 U.S. 311 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON Syllabus The case having been dismissed for want of a federal question, the court grants leave to file, and treats as filed, a petition for rehearing and orders that the case stand for consideration on the prior submission, the fact that a federal question was raised and decided on a former hearing in the state court being shown by the official report of its opinion and the failure of counsel to include that opinion in the record, as should have been done, or to refer to the decision in their briefs and arguments being due to excusable inadvertence. Memorandum opinion by direction of the Court, by MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE. There being nothing in the record to establish that the fe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Ex Parte Southwestern Surety Ins. Co. - 247 U.S. 19 (1918) U.S. Supreme Court Ex Parte Southwestern Surety Ins. Co., 247 U.S. 19 (1918) Ex Parte Southwestern Surety Insurance Company No. 28, Original Submitted April 22, 1918 Rule discharged May 20, 1918 247 U.S. 19 PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION Syllabus In an action against a contractor and surety under the Act of August 13, 1894, 28 Stat. 278, as amended, the district court has jurisdiction to decide whether claims of materialmen were filed within the year limited by the act, and upon the effect of filing them later. Prohibition will not issue to control the district court upon questions which that court is competent to decide or questions dependent on facts not presented to this Court. Rule discharged. Upon petition, a rule was made upon the judge of the District Court for the Western District of North Carolina to show cause why a writ of prohibition should not issue to prevent further proceedings in an action brough...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Arkansas v. Tennessee - 247 U.S. 461 (1918) U.S. Supreme Court Arkansas v. Tennessee, 247 U.S. 461 (1918) Arkansas v. Tennessee No. 4, Original Entered June 10, 1918 247 U.S. 461 I NTERLOCUTORY DECREE. IN EQUITY Syllabus Defining the principle determining the boundary between Arkansas and Tennessee in accordance with the previous opinion and decision, 246 U. S. 158 , and appointing a commission, duly empowered, to locate and designate the line, with instruction to report, etc. This cause came on to be heard at this Term and was argued by counsel, and thereupon and on consideration thereof, it was Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed as follows, viz: 1. The true boundary line between the States of Arkansas and Tennessee, aside from the question of the avulsion of 1876, hereinafter mentioned, is the middle of the main channel of navigation of the Mississippi River as it existed at the Treaty of Peace concluded between the United States and Great Britain in 1783, subject to such ...
Tag this Judgment!