Volume 125 — United States Reports

Held: as we know from its opinion that it did hold, that the case was one arising under the constitution or laws of the United States. The gravamen of the bill was, the obstruction of the navigation of the Willamette River by the defendants, by the erection of the bridge which they were engaged in building. The defendants pleaded the authority of the state legislature for the erection of the bridge.

This was a petition, filed March 30, 1883, in the Civil District Court for the Parish of New Orleans, by the New.' Orleans Waterworks .Company against the Louisiana Sugar Refining Company and the City of New-Orleans, to restrain the laying of water pipes from the factory of the Louisiana Sugar Refining Company through the streets and thoroughfares of the city to the Mississippi River.- The allegations of the petition are in substance as follows: That the legislature.of…

Held: that this court liad no jurisdiction on writ of error. These were three suits in equity, one brought by the Shelby Railroad Company, another by the Shelby Railroad District of Shelby County in the State of Kentucky, and the third by Kreiger and other individual • stockholders in the railroad company. The plaintiffs in each suit were made defendants in each of the other suits.

Held: that the record presented no federal question within the jurisdiction of this court on writ of error. *55 A federal question, within the jurisdiction of this court on writ of error to the highest .court of a State, cannot be originated by a certificate of the chief justice of that court, if no such question appears by the record to have been involved in the judgment.

This was an action at law, in contract, to recover taxes alleged to have been illegally assessed. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff sued out this suit of error. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOE THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.</p> <p>This was an action in the nature of trespass brought by an assignee of an insolvent debtor against a marshal of the United States for levying upon goods of the debtor covered by the deed of assignment. The defendant contested the validity of the assignment. Judgment for defendant'. 15 Fed. Bep. 853. Plaintiff sued out this writ of error. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Held: that the sale was conditional, not to be completed until payment of the note.

This was a bill in equity to restrain the alleged infringement of reissued letters-patent No. 8914, dated September 30, 1879, for an improvement in railroad frogs, the original patent, No. 215,548, dated May 20, 1879, having been issued on an application filed February 4, 1819, to Frederick O. Weir, the complainant. .In his specification the patentee described the invention generally as follows: “My invention relates to the class of frogs made by the bending of the…

<p>APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS.</p> <p>In Equity. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

This was an action to recover customs duties alleged to have been illegally exacted. Judgment for plaintiffs. • Defendant sued out this writ of error. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

In equity. These were cross appeals from the decree entered (on the report of a master) in the execution of the mandate of this court in the cause reported in 102 U. S. 707. The case is stated in the opinion of the court..

Held: not to be a taking within the meaning of the constitutional provision.

<p>APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COUET OF THE DISTRICT OF 'COLUMBIA.</p> <p>Bill in equity. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Held: respectively, at the time of their retirement.” This suit was brought to recover the difference' between, one-half and three-quarters of sea pay from the date of his transfer. The Court of Claims gave judgment against him, and from that judgment this appeal was taken. •We agree entirely with the Court of Claims in the view it took of the case.

<p>APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that marriage is a status entered into by contract, and the parties have no power to alter the status of "marriage" under law with that contract. Thus, a legislative divorce is valid, and courts have no jurisdiction to review them.

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED' STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.'</p> <p>Bill in equity. Decree for complainants. Respondents appealed. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Held: on a motion in arrest of judgment, that an information was bad which only alleged the making of an entry with a design to evade the duties, and did 'not allege the making of a false invoice with such design.

Held: The verdict was a sufficient compliance with .the requirement of § 1G of the act of June 22 1874, c. 391, (18-Stat. 189,) that, in order to a forfeiture the jury should find that “the alleged acts-were done with an actual intention to defraud the United State?; ” (2) The judgment was sufficient without reciting any special fl .ding by the jury as to an intent to defraud. *241 Under § 12 of the act of June 22, 1874,…

<p>The general rule that when the answer of the defendant in a cause in equity is direct, positive, and unequivocal in its denial of the allegations in the bill, and an answer on .oath is not waived, the complainant will not be entitled +o a decree unless these denials are disproved by evidence of greater weight than the testimony of one witness, or by that of one witness with corroborating circumstances, applies when the equity of the complainant’s bill is the allegation of fraud..</p> <p>In order to rescind a contract for the purchase of real estate on the ground of fraudulent representation by the seller, it must be established by clear and decisive proof that the alleged representation was made in regax’d to a material fact; that it was false; that the maker know that it was not true; that he made it in order to have it acted on by the other party; and that it was so acted upon by the other party to his damage, and in ignorance of its falsity and with a reasonable belief that it was truel</p> <p>Statements made by the seller of a speculative property like a mine, at the time of the contract of sale, concerning his opinion or judgment as to the probable amount of mineral which it contains, or as to the character of the bottom of the ore chamber, or as to the value of the mine, if they turn out to be untrue, are not necessarily such fraudulent representations as will authorize a court of equity to rescind the contract of sale.</p> <p>The fact that a representation made by a seller was false raises 'no presumption that he knew that it was false.</p> <p>When the purchaser of a property undertakes to make investigations of his own respecting it before concluding the contract of purchase, and the vendor does nothing to prevent his investigation from being as full as he chooses, the purchaser cannot afterwards allege that the vendor made representations respecting the subject investigated which were false.</p>

Held: That the Circuit Coui>t of Jackson County, in which this action was commenced, had concurrent jurisdiction with the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri in the case, and that therefore the plea to the jurisdiction was properly overruled by the Circuit Court; (2) That, while the piers of the bridge were constructed parallel with the current of the river as required by the act of…

Held: p. 381, “ that when in a court of equity it is proposed to set aside, to annul, or to correct a written instrument for . fraud or mistake in the execution of the instrument itself, the testimony on which this is done must be clear, unequivocal, and convincing, and that it cannot be done upon a bare preponderance of evidence which leaves the issue in doubt.

Held: “When original surveys have been made and returned as a block into the land office, the location of each ..tract therein may be proved by proving the location of the block. In ascertaining the location of a tract the inquiry is not where it should or might' have been located, but where it actually rvas located.

<p>Quilts composed of cotton and eider-down, or silk and eider-down, eiderdown being in each case the component material of chief value, are subject to a duty, on importation into the United States, of twenty per cent . ad valorem as manufactured articles not enumerated.</p>

This was an application to a state court of Missouri for a mandamus, which was refused. The relator sued out this writ of error. . The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Held: that an assessment laid under the latter Statute was not a'taking of property without due process of law, in violation of the'.Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Held: and brought suit upon said note. The treasurer of the Missouri Pacific Bail way Company testifies that his company did, in June, 1882, hold the note of the Memphis and Little Bock Company *381 (as reorganized) for $115,479.03, given by the latter company for advances made by the Missouri Pacific Railway Company to meet coupons of the former company.

This was a bill in equity by George P. Bissell against Abraham G. Barnett, his wife, Byron H. Barnett and James W. Barnett his minor sons, his sisters Susan B. Shoaff and Mary Ann Wall and their husbands, Henry J. Budisill, Oscar A. Simons and John H. Bass, Henry Burgess, Charles Á. Zollinger, and the representatives of John J. Eamm, to foreclose mortgages of real estate in Indiana.

Held: that the indorsement only gave A power to take, possession, but no power to sell. A cause was tried before á jury in a state court, and being taken to the highest court of the State that court ordered a new trial, deciding that a *398 certain document was admissible in evidence as an ancient deed. After the cause was remanded to the trial court it was removed to. the Circuit ' Court of'the United States.

Held: The plaintiff in that suit was entitled to recover what the jury in the' replevin suit had found to have been the value of the ice where and when it was taken, with interest thereon from the date of the verdict in the replevin suit; (2) It was not competent for the obligors in the bond to show that the ice was of less value than the amount stated in the writ of replevin and the bond; but it was competent for the…

This action was begun in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, June 15,1886, on which day the plaintiffs filed their declaration, as follows: “ George A. Bowman, a citizen of the state of Nebraska, and Fred.

Held: — that the goods on board, being In the custody and under the control of officers of the customs, were in “ a public store,” or “ bonded warehouse,” within the meaning of those terms as used in § 10 of the act of March 3, 1883, 22 Stat. 488 , 525, and were subject to the duty imposed by the provisions of that act.

Held: that he was not estopped. The provision in Rev. Stat. § 721 that “ the laws of the several States, except ■ where the Constitution, treaties, or statutes of the United States otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law in the courts of the Umted States in cases where they apply ” is not applicable to proceedings in equity, or in admiralty, or to criminal offences…

Held: that the judgment of the court below for their recovery must be affirmed. *586 The case is stated in the

Held: • : *592 (1) That the claim was presented in time; and that'al though the surety had not paid thd' judgment when the claim was presented, he'was entitled in equity to be protected from making the payment; (2) That the purchasers at the foreclosufe sale, having been represented in the foreclosure proceedings by the trustees of the mortgage were bound by whatever bound the trustees ¡ including the orders of the court…

The original suit was a bill in equity, filed May 7, 1884, by Florence W. Hays, the widow of John J. Hays, against Frank H DeWolf and wife and Horace M. Barnes, to set- aside a deed of real estate from DeWolf and wife to Barnes, and to compel a conveyance to the plaintiff. Upon a hearing on pleadings and proofs, the Circuit Court -entered a decree for “the plaintiff, and the defendants appealed to this court. The case is stated in the opinion.

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE’ DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.</p> <p>Ejectment. Yerdict for the plaintiff and judgment on the . verdict. Defendants sued out this writ of error. The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>In a suit in equity, in a Circuit Court, to obtain a release of land from liability under a deed of trust, the plaintiff had a decree. On an appeal to this court by .the defendant, no evidence of the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court on the ground of citizenship was found in the record. This court reversed the decree with costs, and remanded the case for further proceedings.</p> <p>The decree reversing the decree of the Circuit Court in this-case on the ground-that the record contained no evidence of the jurisdiction of that court was then vacated, because the record showed that the suit was brought to restrain the enforcement of a judgment in-ejectment recovered in the same Circuit Court. ■</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.</p> <p>The case' is stated in the opinion.</p>

Held: that this did not amount to an adoption by Congress of the report of the Quartermaster General, and that there was go inference that thb appropriation actually made was intended to be a recognition of a larger amount as due.’ ■ The-case is stated in the opinion of the.court. Mr. Martin F. Mortis for appellant. Mr. Attorney Cheneral and Mr. Héber J. Mmj for appellee.

<p>APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>The. parties having compromised the suit and stipulated that the plaintiff in error shall dismiss it, the court .makes an order'to enforce the stipulation, unless cause to' the contrary he shoivn.</p>

• These cases, which were all submitted together, were all affirmed by a divided court on the 14th day of November, 1887. The plaintiff in error petitioned for a rehearing, citing Home Ins. Co. v. New York, 119 U. S. 129.