Volume 116 — United States Reports

This was an action brought by Michael Hanley and William E. Welch against Charles Donoghue in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, in the State of Maryland, upon a judgment for $2000, recovered by the plaintiffs on June 4, 1877, in an action of covenant against the defendant, Charles Donoghue, together with one John Donoghue, in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County in the State of Pennsylvania, and there recorded. The declaration contained three counts.

This was an action of tort, brought by a citizen of New York against a manufacturing corporation established under the laws of Massachusetts, for. refusing to issue to him a certificate of twenty shares of its capital stock. At the trial, the plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that the defendant corporation in 1874 accepted a new charter from the Legislature of Massachusetts, (Mass.

<p>error to the circuit court of the united states for the SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

This -was.an action brought by the plaintiff in error to recover duties on certain importations of wool, alleged to have been illegally assessed, in which judgment was rendered for the defendant. It was brought here for review by writ of error.

Held: in general terms, that “ the application of an old process or machine to a similar or analogous subject, with no change in the manner of applying it, and no result substantially distinct in its nature, will not sustain a patent, even if the new form of *28 result has not before been contemplated.” We adhere to that ruling, and the principle involved in it is fatal to the patent now under consideration.

<p>The Fort Hill Indian reservation in the County of Oneida, in the Territory of Idaho, is not excluded from the limits of the Territory by the act of March 3, 1863, creating it; and the treaty of July 3, 1868, with the eastern band of Shoshonees and theBannack tribe does not necessarily except it from the jurisdiction of the Territory.</p> <p>The lands and railroad of the Utah & Northern Railway Company situated within the limits of the Fort Hill Indian Reservation are subject to territorial taxation, which may be enforced within the exterior boundaries of the reservation by proper process.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE OIROUVT COURT OE THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO.</p> <p>In equity. The facts which make the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI.</p> <p>The facts which make the case' are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

This was a motion to dismiss án appeal from the execution of a mandate of this court, 112 U. S. 369, 377, “ for the reason that the decree of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, from which said appeal was taken, was by that court entered in accordance with, and in execution of, the mandate of this court., issued on a previous appeal and directed to that court; or if the said appeal shall not be dismissed, that the said decree of the said Supreme Court of the…

<p>error to the circuit court oe emmet county, state oe MICHIGAN.</p> <p>The facts which make the case are stated iu the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>This court is without jurisdiction over a caso brought here on error from a State court, unless it appears in the record that the Federal question was raised in that court before the entry of a final judgment in the ease.</p>

Cannon v. United States, 116 U.S. 55 (1885), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held compacts for sexual non-intercourse, easily made and easily broken, when the prior marriage relations continue to exist, with the occupation of the same house and table and the keeping up of the same family unity, is not a lawful substitute for the monogamous family which alone the statute tolerates.

The record in this case showed the following state of facts: On April 30, 1885, the appellant Roberts presented his petition to the judge of the District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, and filed the same in the office of the clerk, alleging that he was illegally restrained of his liberty by the appellee, Reilly, who claimed to be acting as an agent of the State of New York, and as such to hold the petitioner, under color of the authority of the United States, by…

This was a suit in equity brought by Henry H.. Palmer, the appellee, against Asa C. Call, the • appellant, to foreclose a mortgage on the land of the latter given by him to secure his. note for $11,000. The record disclosed the following facts: Albert C. Burn-ham, residing in Illinois, was a partner in the firm of Burnham, Ormsby & Co., bankers, at Emmetsburg, Iowa. He had in his-hands for investment $10,000 belonging to his relative, one Mrs. Davidson.

<p>The exclusive jurisdiction conferred upon District Courts of the United States, before the enactment of the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1875, over suits for the recovery of penalties and forfeitures under the customs laws of the United States, is not taken away by the first section of that act.</p>

Held: that tile presumption that the instrument was what ■' purported to be must prevail.

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA.</p> <p>The facts which make the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>The act of the legislature of Louisiana of 1872 prohibiting, with some éxcep-' tions, parish tax levies in excess of one hundred per centum of the State tax for the year was the measure of the taxing power of parishes in that State in 1874, 1875, and 1876.</p> <p>The" authority given-by the act of the legislature of Louisiana of 1869 to a judge rendering a judgment against a parish to order a levy of taxes sufficient for its payment, was taken away by the act of 1872, limiting parochial taxation to one hundred per centum of the State tax for the year, for all amounts'in, excess of the limit fixed by the latter act.</p>

This was a motion to dismiss the writ of error in this ease. The facts which make the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>APPEAL PROM T,HE SUPREME COURT OP THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.</p> <p>This was a motion to dismiss an appeal. The facts which 'make the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

This-was a motion to order up evidence from the Court of Claims; accompanied by an alternative motion to order that court to make specific findings of fact. -The facts which make the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>The pension which widows are entitled to receive under the provision of Rev. Stat. § 4703, is the pension for total disability which is granted to those en, titled to receive it by Rev. Stat. § 4695.</p>

This suit was brought by plaintiff in error as plaintiff below against an officer who. had seized, on a writ of attachment against Hayner & Co., property sold and delivered by them to plaintiff. The facts which make the case are stated .in the. opinion of the court. Judgment below for defendant. Plaintiff .sued out this writ of error to review it.

Held: in United States v. Schurz, 102 U. S. 378 , to be authorized to issue writs of mandamus, namely, because by the act of February 27, 1877, ch. 69, § 2, 19 Stat. 253 , that court has cognizance of “ all cases in law and equity between parties, both or either of which shall be resident or be found within said District; ” as well as because it has all the powers formerly exercised by the courts of Maryland, which, as…

This was a bill in equity brought by appellant as complainant below to restrain appellees from an alleged infringement of a patent for an improved glove fastening. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>The bridge built by the Joliet and Chicago Railroad Company and maintained by the Chicago and Alton Railroad Company over Healy Slough, does not cross it at a point where it is a navigable highway for the public.</p>

This bill of complaint brought bye Amanda Sterling and her four sons against Barnwall and Gaynor, as assignees in bankruptcy, was dismissed on demurrer, solely, as appeared from the opinion of the circuit judge, because the suit was barred by the limitation of suits by or against' assignees in bankruptcy found in section 5057 of the Revised Statutes, to wit: “ No suit, either at law or in equity, shall be maintainable in any court, between an assignee in bankruptcy and a…

<p>The act of April 10, 1869, 16 Stat. 45, “to renew certain grants of land to the State of Alabama,” which were granted- by the act of June 3, 1856. 11 Stat. 17, is not to be construed as a new and original grant, but as an extension of the time named in the original act for the completion of the railroads referred to in it.</p>

This was an action at law to recover back taxes alleged to have been illegally exacted by a collector of internal revenue. The facts which make the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

Held: That if the facts raised any Federal question, they did not show that A was about to be deprived of his property without just compensation.' This was an appeal from the final decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado, dismissing, upon demurrer to the bill, a suit in equity instituted in that court by Henry C. Brown against James B. Grant, Governor, William H. Meyers,…

<p>APPEAL PROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.</p> <p>This was an appeal from the Court of Claims. The fácts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>In a suit in Connecticut for a strict foreclosure of a mortgage of real estate brought, against a grantee of the mortgagor, if the mortgagee seeks to charge the mortgagor -with any insufficiency in the appraised value of the land to pay the mortgage debt, the latter is a necessary party to the suit so as to prevent a removal of it to a Federal court by his grantee, if he and the mortgagee are citizens of the same State.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP GEORGIA.</p> <p>These were suits in equity to restrain the collection of taxes. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OE THE UNITED STATES EOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OE NEW YORK.</p> <p>This was a suit in equity on an alleged infringement of a patent. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that held, "Unless restrained by their own constitutions, state legislatures may enact statutes to control and regulate all organizations, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations except those which are authorized by the militia laws of the United States." It states that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution limited only the power of Congress and the national government to control firearms, not that of the states, and that the right to peaceably assemble in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was not protected by the clause referred to except to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION FROM THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK., The defendant was indicted in the Circuit Court of .the United States for the Southern District of New York for an alleged offence set out in the first count of the indictment, the other three being substantially similar, as follows: “ The jurors of the United States of America within and for the district and circuit aforesaid, on their oaths, present that Morris Spiegel, late of the city and county of New…

This was an action of debt in the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, on a judgment recovered in a court of Louisiana in •favor of one Wilbur, as syndic for his creditors, on a joint cause of action against Joseph S. Abbott and Edward A. Abbott as copartners. The record in Louisiana showed' that service was made against Joseph S. Abbott alone, and that judgment was entered against, both.

The object of the first of these suits was the recovery of á judgment for money, and of the second the enforcement, by the wri.t of mandamus, of the judgment recovered in the first. They were argued as one case. In the first case Henry Watson, the defendant in error, was the plaintiff in the Circuit Court.

The Railroad Commission Cases, 116 U.S. 307 (1886), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the power of states to set transportation charges of railroad companies. The Court held that the fixing of freight and passenger rates in railroad transportation was a permissible exercise of state police power.

Like the-last two cases, this was. a suit in equity to enjoin the Railroad Commissioners, and was heard with those cases. The facts which make the case are stated in the opinion of the court. The case was argued with Stone v. Farmers' Loan In addition to the general line of argument in Stone v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., they presented the following facts as specially applicable to the railroad for which they appeared.

Held: and the majority of the legal voters of. any township or incorporated town were in favor of a subscription to said railroad, then and in that case no other election need be had, and the amount so voted for shall be subscribed as in this act provided.

On the 28th of June, 1879, the plaintiff below, defendant in error here, was injured by the collision of a train of the Centra,! Railroad Company of New Jersey with the carriage in which he was riding; and this action was brought to recover damages for the injury. The railroad was at the time operated by a receiver of the company appointed by order of the court of chancery of New Jersey.

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME OOURT OF THE- STATE OF CALIFORNIA.</p> <p>The nature of these two actions and the facts which make the issue are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

This was a bill in equity, filed June 25, 1884, by John H. Stebbins, Edward G. Judson, William A. Tenney and Sutherland Tenney, and by William D. Judson and Amos Tenney, lately partners with Joseph E.. Young, under the name of Joseph.

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOE THE NORTHERN DISTRICT 0$ FLORIDA.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

George, P. Hunt, the appellant, a chief engineer in the navy, brought this suit in the Court oh Claims to recover a balance of pay due him, as he alleged, from the United States. The facts were as follows: On October 25, 1868, the appellant was a first assistant engineer in the United States Navy, and had served in that grade two years at sea on board a naval steamer.

The judgment appealed from in this case was rendered in favor of the appellee, who was plaintiff below, for the sum of $1032, upon the following finding of facts • reported by the Court of Claims: I. The claimant, John H. Wallace, was a commissioner of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Alabama from January 16, 1882, to November 22, 1883. II.

This is an appeal from a decree dismissing a bill in equity by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of the Diocese of Baltimore, of which the District of Columbia is a part, to clear the title of lots numbered 36 to 40 inclusive (being the lots formerly numbered 5, 6 and 7), in square 376 in the City of Washington, from a cloud created by the assessment and sale thereof for taxes amounting, with interest, to more than $5000.

<p>error to the circuit court of the united states for the EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.</p> <p>This was a motion to dismiss or affirm. The facts which make the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

shows. And this is the construction put upon the case in Wells on Jurisdiction of Courts, § 193 ; and in Rapalje on Contempts, § 21, where it is said : “ Civil con-tempts are those quasi contempts which consist in failing to do something which-the contemnor is ordered by the court to do for the benefit or advantage of another party to the proceeding before the court; while criminal contempts are all those acts in disrespect of the court, or of 'its process, or which obstruct…

Held: That it must be determined here on those findings. StringfeMow v; Cain, 99 U. S. 610 , approved.

This was an application to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia for a mandamus to require the Secretary of the Interior to cause a survey to be made of an island in the Mississippi opposite St. Louis. Mandamus being refused, a writ of error was sued out. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. • •'

Held: That questions arising on demurrers to counts in the information, and ds to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, could be reviewed. The Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the suit. A general verdict on several counts in such an information, which proceeds only for the forfeiture of specific property, will be upheld, if one count is good.

Held: that questions as to the sufficiency of the information, and the regularity of the proceedings, not- having been formally raised in the Circuit Court, could not be raised in this court.

In 1875 the legislature of the State of Michigan passed an act relating to the sale of liquors in that State to be shipped into the State by persons not residing therein, known as Act No. 226 of the Session Laws of 1875, of which the following is a copy: “ An Act to impose a tax on the business of selling spirituous and intoxicating, malt, brewed, and fermented liquors in the State of Michigan to be shipped from without this state. “ Section 1.

These cases were argued on the 14th and 15th .of January, 1886, by Mr. John M. Butler and Mr. Joseph E. McDonald for the St. Louis, Alton and Terre Haute Railroad Company, and by Mr. Stevenson Burke and Mr., Ashley Pónd for the Pennsylvania Railroad, Company.

The facts of the case brought here by this appeal, as .found by the Court of Claims, were in substance as follows: In 1877 the appellee, who was the claimantr below, entered the Naval Academy as a cadet-engineer, and on June 10, 1881, received a certificate signed by- its officers that he had completed the prescribed course of study at the academy and had successfully passed the required examination before the academic board.

United States v. Perkins, 116 U.S. 483 (1886), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning the removal power under the Appointments Clause.

This was a suit in the Court of Claims against the District of Columbia. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

MONTANA. Under the statute law of the Territory of Montana there is no distinction between legal and equitable remedies, and there is “ but one form of action for the enforcement or protection of private rights and the redress or prevention of private wrongs,” which is “ the same at law and in equity.” Revised Statutes of Montana of 1879, page 41.

This was an action brought to recover back duties alleged to have been illegally exacted. The facts which make the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

Held: That they were still part of the general mass of property of the State, liable to taxation, if taxed in the usual way in which such property is taxed in the State.

This was an action in ejectment to recover possession of mineral lands in Colorado. The facts which, make the case are-stated in the opinion of the court.

ORIGINAL MOTION in A CAUSE PENDING IN ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY. This was a motion to advance, founded upon the following allegations: “ That said action was brought for the recovery of alleged delinquent taxes assessed and levied by the State Board of Equalization of Kentucky upon that part of the Kentucky Central Railroad which is in Bourbon County in said State.

<p>error to the circuit- court of the united states for the NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.</p> <p>The facts which, make the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

This was a motion to dismiss a writ of error for want of jurisdiction. The facts which make the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

Held: in the case of Bell v. Midland Railway Co., 10 C. B. N. S. 287, that, where-a railway company had obstructed a siding belonging to an adjoining landowner with a high hand and in violation of his rights under an act of Parliament, exemplary damages, might justly be given.

A former judgment in this case rendered against the plaintiff in error by the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia was reversed by this court, a report of which, will be found in 114 IJ. S. 309.

The plaintiff in error was convicted, in the Hustings Court of tbe City of Richmond, of the misdemeanor under the laws of Virginia of practising law as a lawyer without having first obtained a license so to do from the commissioner of the revenue.

The plaintiff in error filed in the Circuit Court of Fauquier County a petition for a mandamus against the treasurer of that county, as follows: “ The petition of ¥m. H. Sands respectfully represents that he is an attorney-at-law, regularly and duly licensed to practice law in the courts of the State of Yirginia according to the laws of said State. “ That on the 8th day of September, 1885, he tendered to E. G. Edmunds, who is the treasurer of the county of Fauquier, and the…

This was a' writ of error brought under § 5 of the act of March 3, 1875, ch. 137, 18 Stat. 370, for the review of an order dismissing a suit begun in the Circuit' Court. The record showed that on the 19th of September, 1884. "William Hartog sued Henry Memory in an action of assumpsit for a breach of a contract to deliver property sold. ' In the declaration Hartog was described as a citizen of the Kingdom-of Holland, and Memory as a citizen of Illinois.

This was a suit in. equity to restrain an alleged infringement of letters patent. ,The facts are stated in the opinion of the c&urt.

<p>In order to maintain an action for deceit, it is not only necessary to establish the telling of an untruth, knowing it to be such, with intent to induce the person to whom it is told to alter his condition, but also that he did alter his condition in consequence, and suffered damage thereby : and if it appear affirmatively that although he altered his condition after hearing the untruth, he was not induced to do it in consequence thereof, but did it independently, the action fails.</p> <p>On the facts proved in this ease the plaintiff has no cause o'f action founded on contract.</p>

This was an action by the maker of an accommodation note against the payee for whose accommodation it was made. Judgment for plaintiff below, which this writ of error was sued out to review.

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS.</p> <p>The facts which make the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) was a decision by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that "a search and seizure [was] equivalent [to] a compulsory production of a man's private papers" and that the search was "an 'unreasonable search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment."

This was a bill in equity for the infringement of letters patent granted October 10, 1876, and reissued February 22, 1882, for an improved fountain hose-carriage.

Held: that the provision of the statute of 1853, exempting the railroad, fixtures and appurtenances “ from taxation for ten years after the completion of said road,” did not relieve the old corporation from taxation before the road was completed; and therefore gave judgment *667 for the plaintiff, without determining whether the new corporation had succeeded to the rights of the old one "in this respect. 34 La. Ann. 954 .

Held: That it was a question of law-for the court whether this was a substitution within the meaning of the rule : (2) That an instruction to the jury upon these facts that there had been no valid substitution of other contracts for those which were cancelled .and plaintiff could not recover was correct.

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ' FOR- THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO.</p> <p>The facts which make the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES - FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS.</p> <p>The facts .which make the case are stated in the opinion;-of the court.</p>