Volume 141 — United States Reports

ORIGINAL. On the 2d of February, 1891, leave was granted to Mr. Walter Van Rensselaer Berry to file the petition of Garnett, Stubbs & Co. and several others for a writ of prohibition to prohibit the judge of the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Southern District of Georgia from, proceeding with a suit in admiralty in that court, in whieh John Lawton, owner of the steamer Katie, had libelled that vessel and summoned the petitioners as…

This was an action brought by the State of Pennsylvania against Pullman’s Palace Car Company, a corporation of Illinois, in the Court of Common Pleas of the county of Dauphin in the State of Pennsylvania, to recover- the amount of a tax settled by the. auditor general and approved by the treasurer of that State, for the years 1870 to 1880..inclusive, on the defendant’s capital stock, taking as the basis of assessment such proportion of its capital stock as the number of…

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS.</p> <p>The case is stated in 'the opinion.</p>

ERROR “TO THE COURT OP APPEALS OP THE STATE OP KENTUCKY. The case was stated by the court as follows This case arose at Frankfort, Franklin County, Kentucky, upon an indictment found against Crutcher, the plaintiff, in error, in'the Franklin Circuit Court, for acting and doing business as agent for the United States Express Company, alleged to be an' express company not incorporated by the laws of Kentucky, but trading and doing business as a common carrier, by express, of…

<p>ERROR TO THE CORPORATION COURT OF THE CITY OF. NORFOLK, STATE OF VIRGINIA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POB THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP ALABAMA,</p> <p>The casé is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT. OF NEBRASKA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

In 1857, William Newton Morcer uJnveyed certain lands in Illinois to Ayres P. Merrill, in trust for the latter’s daughter, Anna M., to the sole and separate use of -said Anna M., and the heirs of her body, free from the control, debts, liabilities or contracts of any husband she might have, with power in the trustee to sell and dispose of the same, in whole or in part, and reinvest the proceeds in either real or personal property, to be held for the same uses and purposes…

Held: however, in a multitude of cases, that it had power to inquire with regard to the jurisdiction of the inferior court, either in respect to the subject matter or to the person, even if such inquiry involved an examination of- facts outside of, but not inconsistent with, the record.

This was a bill originally filed by the appellants to enjoin the execution and enforcement of a judgment in ejectment, wherein Thomas Burns and Martha B. Burns were plaintiffs, and Daniel Reynolds, Levi H. Springer, Samuel E. Halley, Hiliary H. Halley, Watt C: Halley and Richard Hurt were defendants.

This was a writ of error sued out under the act of February 25, 1889, .25 Stat. 693, c. 236, allowing a .writ of error in all cases involving the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. The action- was brought by the defendants in error against Denny, one of the plaintiffs in error, to recover certain wines purchased of the plaintiffs by one Momand through the alleged fraudulent device of Denny, who subsequently seized such wines upon an attachment of his own against Momand.

<p>The only question open in a case brought up under the act of February 25, 1889, 25 Stat. 693, c. 236, where the judgment does not exceed $5000, is the question of jurisdiction of the court below.</p> <p>In the Indian Territory a right of action survives against a railroad company inflicting injuries upon a passenger which result in death-When a defendant sued in a Circuit Court of the United States appears and pleads to the merits, he waives any right to challenge thereafter the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that the suit has been brought in the wrong district.</p>

Held: That the defendant Cushing, having in good faith sold his bank stock and taken proper steps for its transfer, and orally tendered his resignation as a director to the president of the bank, and ceased to act as such, cannot be held liable for the consequences of breaches of trust alleged to have been subsequently thereafterwards committed: (2) That Charles T. Coit was guilty of no want of ordinary care in acting…

McAllister v. United States, 141 U.S. 174 (1891), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Congress may provide for the at-will removal of territorial offices, even if such officers exercise judicial functions. The office in this case, a federal judgeship in Alaska Territory, presided over an Article IV tribunal called a territorial court.

This appeal brought up for review a judgment by the Court of Claims sustaining a demurrer to a petition filed by the appellant, in which he claimed as due him from the United States for salary as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Washington the sum-of $1964.55, from December 11, 1885, to August 5, 1886, inclusive, and $1543.03, from August 24,1886, to February 27,1887, inclusive; in all, $3507.58.

<p>APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF IDAHO.</p> <p>This was a petition for a mandamus filed in the Supreme Court of the Territory of Idaho by the appellee Havird, who was sheriff defacto, and also claimed to be sheriff .¿fe jure, of Boisé County, to compel the county commissioners to issue warrants upon the treasury for the sum of $5595.47, for(his sdtvices and expenses as sheriff for the years 1887 and 1888. His claim consisted of a salary fixed by law at the sum of $2798, and of expenses incurred as sheriff in the sum of $2797.-47, making the aggregate of .$5595.47. The items of his claim for expenses were $692.25 for boarding prisoners; $1302 for jailor’s feés; $595.22 for collecting a license'tax; $156.15 for, transportation of prisoners; and'$51.85 for collecting a Territorial license tax.</p> <p>The answer of. the- county commissioners averred in excuse of their non-payment of the claim, that an action in' the nature of quo warranto had been begun against petitioner, and was still pending in the District'Court for, the county of Boisé,upon the relation of the appellant John Gorman, to test the title to the office of sheriff, arid that under the laws of Idaho, Bey. Stats. § 380, “ when the title of the incumbent of any . officé in this Territory is contested by proceedings instituted in any court for that purpose, ño warrant can thereafter be drawn' or paid for any part of his salary until such proceedings have bepn finally determined,” By leave of the court; Gorman, the contestant, intervened in the case, claiming to have been duly elected sheriff, setting forth the pendency of the proceedings in the quo warranto case, and demanding that'.the writ of mandamus bé denied.</p> <p>The suit in reality turned upon the question whether the proceedings in quo warra/nto were still pending, or had been dismissed, and resulted in a judgment that the quo warranto case then pending in the District Court should be dismissed, and that a writ of mandamus forthwith issue, directing the defendants, the county commissioners of Boise County to order the issuing of a warrant for the amount theretofore allowed by the board.for the time specified on account of fees and expenses; and that immediately upon the dismissal of the action in quo warranto a writ of mandate issue, “ commanding said commissioners to qrder the issuing of a warrant or warrants in the name of plaintiff herein, for the amount due him as salary for the time specified, and that a copy hereof be certified to said District Court.” From this judgment Gorman appealed, but the County Commissioners did not. Petitioner thereupon made this motion to dismiss upon the ground that the requisite jurisdictional amount was not involved.</p>

.The case, as stated by the court, was as follows: The writ of error in this case was dismissed January 12, 1891. Caldwell v. Texas, 137 U. S. 692. Plaintiff in error, applied for a rehearing upon the ground that no notice had been given of the motion to dismiss.

The plaintiffs in error, plaintiffs below, were merchants ■doing business in the city of New York. The defendants were merchants doing business in the city of Boston. The latter had a large establishment, divided into different departments, fifty or sixty in number, with a superintendent in charge of each, and in the neighborhood of two thousand employes.

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

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTINCT OF MASSACHUSETTS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

Held: that the judgment of the Circuit Court should be reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to enter judgment for the receiver. The case is stated in the opinion. Mr. A. A. Banney for plaintiff in error. Mr. J. II. Benton, Jr., for defendant in error.

Union Pacific Railway Company v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250 (1891), was a case before the United States Supreme Court.

Held: that the error, if any, in this respect could not be corrected by bill in equity filed by a surety on a bond given to release D. when arrested on ne exeat proceedings in that Rhode Island suit. A pleading presenting only a question of error in a judgment of a state ' court does not go to the jurisdiction.

Held: That the powers conferred and the trusts imposed were annexed to the office of executors; and that they took the legal title in fee, to hold until they had divided the estate, or the proceeds of its sale, among the devisees of the residue. ■(2) That an equitable estate in fee in one fourth of the residue of the estate vested in the brother and the nephew, respectively, from the death of the testator. ■(3) That the…

ORIGINAL. No number.. This was a petition for leave to file an application for a writ of mandamus. The averments in the petition, upon which the prayer was founded, are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court.

This was a.motion- to dismiss a writ of error, or affirm the judgment of the court below upon the following state of facts:; : .

In equity. To restrain the infringement of letters patent; md for an account. Decree in complainant’s favor, from vhich respondent appealed. The case is stated in the opinion.

Held: notwithstanding this section, that where a tax •deed is relied on as evidence of paramount title, it is indispensable that it be supported by a valid judgment for the taxes .and a proper precept authorizing the sale. Holbrook v. Dickinson, 46 Illinois, 285; Gage v. Lightburn, 93 Illinois, 248, 252; Pardridge v. Village of Hyde Park, 131 Illinois, 537, 541.

Held: That the evem-numbered sections within' the place limits of the Leavenworth, Lawrence and Fort Gibson Railroad were reserved to the United States by the act of 18G3,- and, therefore were excepted from the grant in the act of 1866 and con lei not be patented to the Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company, pp supply deficiencies in its place limits; (2) The ewere-numberecl sections that were within the common…

Held: that the presumption must be indulged, in support of the action of a court having jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter — nothing to the contrary affirmatively appearing — that the facts existed which justified its action; and, therefore, that the court granted the application for a rehearing at the previous term.

The court stated the case as follows: The Trust Company made a loan to Rose H. Fowler, a citizen of Illinois, of the sum of $6000, for 'five years, with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum, payable semi-annually. The latter executed to the company six coupon bonds of $1000 each, dated May 1, 1874, payable May 1, 1879, with interest semi-annually at the rate of seven per cent per annum; the principal and interest payable at the office of the company in New York.

Held: That the payment of these commissions to the company’s agent did not make the contract usurious, because if that sum was added to the nine per cent stipulated to be paid, the total amount of the interest exacted was less than the highest rate then allowed by law; (2) The stipulation in the deed of trust providing for the payment by the borrower, in addition to ordinary costs, of a reasonable solicitor’s fee, not…

<p>An application by petition to a court of law, after its judgment has been reversed and a different judgment directed to be entered, to so change the record of the original judgment as to make a case materially different from that presented to the court of review, — there being no clerical mistake, and nothing having been- omitted from the record of the original action which the court intended to make a matter of record — was properly denied. Such a case does not come within the rule that a court, after the expiration of the term, may, by an order, nunc pro tunc, amend the record by inserting what had been omitted by the act, of the clerk or of the court.</p>

The court stated the case as follows: This was a bill in equity for the infringement of two letters patent granted to appellant McClain; viz. patent No. 259,700, issued June 20, 1882, for a “pad for horse-collars,” and patent No. 267,011, issued November 7, 1882, for an improvement upon the same.

<p>Grymes v. Sanders, 93 U. S. 55, affirmed and applied to the point that where a party, desires to rescind a contract upon the ground of mistake or fraud, he must, upon discovery of the facts, at once announce his purpose and adhere to it, and that if he be silent, and continue to treat the property as his own, he will be held to have waived the objection; and will be conclusively bound by the contract, as if the mistake or fraud had not occurred.</p> <p>A holder of the legal title to real estate who has no equitable interest therein, cannot, by his act done without the knowledge or consent of the holder of the equitable title, who is in possession of and residing on the premises, claiming title, rescind a completed settlement of a mortgage debt on the premises so as to bind the holder of the equitable title, and . prevent him from setting up defences which would otherwise be open to him.</p>

<p>In a suit in equity for the foreclosure of a railroad mortgage this court holds, on appeal by the purchaser at the foreclosure sale from a decree declaring the claim of an intervenor to be a lien upon the property, that the reeord is too meagre for.it to determine whether there was any error in the decree.</p> <p>A stipulation in this case that “testimony heretofore taken and filed in this cause” “may be used in Any future litigation touching” the subject of the controversy in the suit is held not to import into the suit testimony from other records in this court; it not appearing by .this record that such testimony was used by the appellant in the hearing below, or that the appellees were parties to the stipulation.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS.</p> <p>In equity. The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

APPEAL EKOM THE CIKCÜIT COURT.OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE ■ EASTERN DISTRICT OP PENNSYLVANIA.

This was an action against the collector of the port of Boston to recover back certain duties upon gilling twine, paid under protest.

<p>APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO.</p> <p>In equity. The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

The case was stated by the court as follows : This case was commenced on the 24th day of November, 1880, by the filing of a petition in the District Court of Knox County, Nebraska. Subsequently it was removed to the Circuit Court of the United States, and at the May term, 1883, of that court á judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. That judgment was reversed by this court, at its October term, 1886. Davis v. Patrick, 122 U. S. 138.

Held: ■ (1) The issue of the certificates was proper. (2) Good faith required that the promise of the court should be redeemed; (3) The purchaser and the bondholders were estopped from setting up any claim against-the priority of the certificates. The appeal was dismissed as to the claims of the appellees which did not exceed $5000.

The case was stated by the court as follows : This was an action brought by the Brewers’ Refrigerating Machine Company against Michael Seitz upon the following contract: . “This agreement, made this 11th day of January, a.d. 1879, between the Brewers’ Refrigerating Machine Company of Alexandria, Va., party of the first part, and Michael Seitz, of Brooklyn, N. Y., party of the second part, witnesseth: “ That the party of the first part hereby agrees and contracts to supply…

<p>APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OP OREGON.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>EEEOE TO THE CIECUIT COUET OF THE UNITED STATES FOE. THE SOUTHEEN DISTRICT OF OHIO.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

Held: that the Circuit Court had discretion to abrogate the six months’ • limitation, and to decree that the purchasers should pay the claim, as the receiver had been discharged. In equity. The case is stated in the opinion. Mr. William M. Baxter for appellants submitted on his brief. Mr. Henry H. Ingersoll for appellee.

Held: The Circuit Court could not properly consider any matter raised by the bill of exceptions, nor can this court do so, because the trial was not by a jury nor on an agreed statement of facts (2) All that the Circuit Court coul'd do was to affirm the judgment of the District Court, and all that this court can do is to affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court, as the latter court had jurisdiction and this court has it.

Held: that, under the circumstances, it. was no more than right that this court should consider the subsequent, affidavits, and that they showed that the amount in controversy was not, sufficient to give this court jurisdiction, and that therefore the appeal must be dismissed. Red River Cattle Company v. Needham, 137 U. S. 632 , affirmed and applied to, the circumstances of this case.

<p>APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.</p> <p>In equity,-for the infringement of letters patent. The case, is stated in the opinion.</p>

Held: That parol evidence was admissible to explain the receipts, and to show that they were not intended to cover the claim for raising, etc.; (2) That the paper so signed by the parties was not in the nature of a contract on the part of the owner. The court stated the case as follows : This case was brought before the court upon a certificate of division of opinion between the circuit and the district judges.

Held: the petitioner in his custody “ by direction of the customs authorities of the port of San.

Marshall v. Holmes, 141 U.S. 589, is an 1891 decision of the United States Supreme Court on equitable relief, res judicata and fraud on the court in diversity jurisdiction. Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote for a unanimous Court that held it unconscionable to allow a state court's decision to stand that had been based on documents later exposed as forgeries. It permitted a federal case seeking to set that verdict aside to go forward. The petitioner had previously had several judgements rendered against her in Louisiana state court. After discovering that a letter attributed to her, used as evidence against her at trial, had been forged, she filed a petition for a bill of review in the Southern District of New York seeking to enjoin the respondent from endorsing the verdict.

Held: • (1) The error in this case was one of law, apparent on the record, and need not have been presented by bill of exceptions; (2) Construing the notes and the deeds as contemporaneous agreements, relating to the same subject matter, the limitation of four years under the law of Texas ran from the dates named in the respective notes, as the dates of maturity,’and not from'the date of the *617 default in the payment of…

The court stated the case as follows: This is an action at law brought by Thomas Craig, administrator of the estate of John Carbry, deceased, against the Continental Insurance Company of New York, a New York insurance corporation, and three other insurance corporations, to recover, under a statute of Michigan, (2 Howell’s Annotated Statutes pf Michigan, §§ 8313, 8314,) $25,000, as damagfes for the death of Carbry, for the benefit of his mother and his. three minor sisters,…

Held: that on these avermeuts ho had a plain, adequate and complete remedy at law, and that the bill must be dismissed. The court stated the case as follows; The controversy involved in this suit arose from conflicting claims of the parties to lands in the suburbs of New Orleans, alleged to be of great value.

<p>ERROR TO THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE INDIAN TERRITORY.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

Held: for reasons given, that the provisions of the statute had been substantially complied with; and as to the denial by the District Court of an order for a bill of particulars, that that was a matter largely (discretionary with the trial court and its ruling would not be disturbed in the absence of anything indicating that the defendants were prejudiced thereby.

<p>Letters patent No. 208,258, granted September 24, 1878, to Henry M.'Myers for an “ improvement in handle sockets for shovels, spades and scoops ” are void for want of novelty in the alleged invention covered by them,, that invention having been anticipated by the “ Ames California spade.”</p>

Held: also, that the taxation of the bridge was not a regulation of commerce among the States, or the taxation of any agency of the Federal government. The case is stated in the opinion. Mr. John G. Carlisle (with whom were Mr. John L. Dorsey, Mr. John Mowng Brown and Mr. Montgomery Merritt on the brief) for the motion to dismiss. Mr. William Dindsay opposing.