Volume 142 — United States Reports

Held: That the assignees must be deemed to have elected not to accept these rights as property of the estate; (2) That Y. was not their trustee in expending his o.wn money to give value to a property which was worthless and abandoned; (3) That the assignees could not be permitted to avail themselves of the result of his action, or to take the property to work out a return of the dividends paid to these particular…

Held: liable although the assault was wranton and wilful, and outside the scope of the employment.

Held: That the liability of F. upon the guaranty was, as between the bank and-him, fixed by the judgment in the action at law; (2) That all the bank could equitably claim in this suit was the amount actually due it from H. & Co., which was considerably less than the amount of the face of the notes; *29 (3) That the transfer and guaranty of the notes to H. & Co. were void under the Illinois statutes, and passed no title to…

Held: even if false, not to be fraudulent, so as to work a rescission of the contract of sale.

Held: In view of provisions of §§ 5146, 5147 and 5210 of the Revised Statutes, it must be presumed conclusively that P. knew, from November 21, that the books showed he held 50 shares; (2) P. did not get rid of his liability for the $1250, by giving to D. his check for that sum in favor of D. individually.

Held: that this ruling of the state court involved no Federal question, and was broad enough to maintain the judgment, without considering the Federal questions raised, and that the writ of error must, therefore, be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, — following Hopkins v. McLure, 133 U. S. 380 ; Hale v. Akers, 132 U. S. 654 ; and Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson City, 141 U. S. 679 '.

Held: the Chief Justice speaking for the court, that an executive agency created by a State for the purpose of improving public highways, and empowered to assess the cost of its improvements upon adjoin *91 ing lands, and to purchase such lands as were delinquent in the payment of the assessment, did not by such purchase acquire a contract fight in the land so bought, which the State could not modify without violating,…

Held: that it was a reasonable inference that the claimant did not offer these coupons in proof, and that the failure to find as to them could not be urged as an objection to the final .decree. *102 The court stated the case as follows: By an act of the, general assembly of South Carolina, of December 19, 1835, the' Cincinnati and Charleston Railroad Company was incorporated with power to construct a railroad from…

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.</p> <p>The case was stated by the court as follows:</p> <p>This was an action of assumpsit. It was based upon an alleged verbal agreement made on or about April 1, 1886, at Marshall, Missouri, between the defendants in error, plaintiffs below, doing business at that place as bankers, under the name of Cordell & Dunnica, and the plaintiffs in error, doing business at the Union Stock Yards, Chicago, Illinois, under the came of Hall Bros. & Co. There was a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for $5785.79.</p> <p>The alleged agreement was in substance that Hall Bros. & Co. would accept and pay, or pay on presentation, all drafts made upon them by one George Farlow, in favor of Cordell & Dunnica, for the cost of any live stock bought by Farlow and shipped by him from Missouri to Hall Bros. & Co. at the Union Stock Yards at Chicago.</p> <p>There was proof before the jury tending to show that, on or about July 13, 1886, Farlow shipped from Missouri nine car loads of cattle and one car load of hogs, consigned to Hall Bros. &i Co. at the Union Stock Yards, Chicago; that such cattle and hogs were received by the consignees, and by them were sold for account of Farlow; that out of the proceeds they retained the amount of the freight on the shipment, the expenses of feeding the stock on the way and at the stock yards, the charges at the yards and of the persons who came to Chicago with the stock, the commissions of the consignees on the sale, the amount Farlow owed them for moneys paid on other drafts over and above the net proceeds of live stock received and sold for him on the market, and two thousand dollars due from Farlow to Hall Bros. & Co. on certain past-due promissory notes given for money loaned to him; that at the time of the above shipment Farlow, at Marshall, Missouri, the place of agreement, made his draft, of date July 13, 1886, upon Hall Bros. & Co., at the Union Stock Yards, Chicago, -in favor of Cordell & Dunnica for $11,274, the draft stating that it was for the nine car loads of cattle and one car load of hogs; that this draft was discounted by Cordell & Dunnica, and the proceeds placed to Farlow’s credit on their books; that the proceeds were paid out by the plaintiffs on his checks in favor of the parties from whom he purchased • the stock mentioned in the draft, and for the expenses incurred in the shipment; that the draft covered only the cost of the stock to Farlow; that upon its presentation to Hall Bros. & Co, they refused to pay it, and the same was protested for nonpayment ; and that, subsequently, Cordell & Dunnica received from Hall Bros. & Co. only the sum of $5936.55, the balance of.the proceeds of the sale of the above cattle and hogs, consigned to them as state'd, after deducting the amounts retained ' by the consignees, out of such proceeds, on the several accounts above mentioned.</p> <p>The contract sued upon, having been made in Missouri, the defendant contended that it was invalid under the statutes of that State which are cited in the opinion of the court, mfm, and could not be made the basis for a recovery in Illinois. This contention being overruled, the defendant excepted, and, (judgment having been given for the plaintiff,) sued out this writ of error.</p>

Held: that this decision proceeded upon the proper construction of a Territorial law, without regard to any right, title or privilege of the plaintiff under an act of Congress, and that the writ of error must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Ejectment. The case is stated in the

Tots was an indictment on section 5209 of the Revised Statutes (which is copied in the margin1) containing forty-four counts, to all of which (except four afterwards abandoned by the prosecution) the defendant demurred; and his demurrer being overruled, hé pleaded not guilty to all the counts.

This was an indictment on section 5209 of the Revised Statutes for aiding and abetting one Claassen in embezzling and misapplying the funds of a certain national bank in the city, of New York. The defendant pleaded not guilty.

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

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.</p>

Held: and the patent follows their decision, that the boundary of the bay, which the decree of confirmation had fixed as that of. ordinary high-water mark, as it existed on the 7th of July, 1846, crosses the mouth of all creeks entering the bay.

<p>IWhen a person, whose equity of redemption in mortgaged real estate is . foreclosed, rests inactive for eleven years, with full knowledge of the foreclosure, and of the purchaser’s rights claimed under it, and of his own rights, and with nothing to hinder the assertion of the latter, and then files a bill in equity to ha.ve the foreclosure proceedings declared void for want of proper service of process upon him, this court will at least construe the language of the returns so as to sustain the legality of the service, if that can reasonably be done, even if it should not regard it as too late to set up such a claim.</p>

The court stated the case as follows: This is an action of ejectment by D. P. Tarpey, the plaintiff belpw, against the Deseret Salt Company, a corporation created under the laws of Utah, for certain parcels of land in that Territory, described in the complaint as. the northwest quarter of fractional section nine (9), in township eleven (11) north, range nine (9) west, Salt Lake base and meridian,.and the northeast quarter and the southwest quarter of said sec-' tion, in part…

Held: and we think correctly, that the release executed by Hunt to the Fox and Wisconsin Improvement Company in 1854, in which he granted .to that company and its representatives “the right to erect and forever maintain an embankment of the dimensions as surveyed by the engineer of said company,” operated as a surrender of all riparian rights appertaining to such lots not reserved in the instrument.

The court stated the' case as follows : This was a proceeding to enforce payment of taxes on real estate remaining delinquent on the first Monday of January, 1886, for the county of Todd, State of Minnesota, and was tried in the District Gourt of thq Seventh Judicial District of that State, which made and filed findings of fact and conclusions of law and ordered judgment for the county against the railway company for the collection of the taxes in question and the interest…

Held: that the exemption of the land from taxation having been recognized by the state court, no Federal question was involved, and the writ of error must be dismissed. Motion to dismiss.

Held: That an erroneous decision of an assessor of taxes under those laws' in the matter of exemptions does not deprive the tax proceedings of jurisdiction, and that, until su6h erroneous decision is modified or set aside by the proper tribunal, all officers with subsequent functions may safely act thereon; and that the rulé of caveat emptor applies to a purchaser at a tax sale thereunder; (2) That under those laws a…

Held: That the contract provided that if the railway company became unable to pay its current debts in the ordinary course of business, it should be released from its obligation on returning the property; (2) That the receiver had the right to return the property, upon complying with the terms of the contract in respect thereto; (3) That, notwithstanding the absence of a provision in- the contract forfeiting payments…

Held: ,,. (1) That as a result of these transactions, a debt was created and the mining property itself was pledged for the payment of that debt, and of the reasonable expenses incurred in the operation of the mine, and not simply its rents and profits; (2) That the instruments did not create a mortgage, but an active and express trust, which was not subject to the rule that when an action on the debt is barred, action on…

Held: estops the county, in an action by an innocent holder for value, to recover on coupons of such bonds, from denying the truth of these recitals. When there is an express recital upon the face of a municipal bond that the limit of issue prescribed by the state constitution has not been passed, and the bonds themselves do not show that it had, the holder is not bound to look further.

Held: in Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U. S. 662 , that this provision limited the power of the county to contract debts for any purpose whatever; and in Lake County v. Graham, 130 U. S. 674 , that the county was not estopped, as against a bona fide holder for value, to show that the constitution had been violated by issuing bonds which recited the whole amount issued, and that they were issued “ under and by virtue of and…

Held: that by proving his debt in bankruptcy he waived his right, pending the question of discharge, to take a deficiency decree against the bankruptthat after the discharge the right to such a decree was lost altogether; that the debtor was not bound, after his discharge, to give any attention to the foreclosure suit; and that, under .the circumstances, the obtaining a deficiency decree amounted to a fraud in law.

The court stated the case as follows: The plaintiff below, and in error, The Charlotte, Columbia and Augusta Railroad Company, is a corporation existing under the laws of the States of North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. Its road and other property are situated -in. the county of Richmond, Georgia, and in the counties of Aiken, Edgefield, Lexington, Richland, Fairfield, Chester and York, South Carolina, an4 in the county of Mecklenberg, North Carolina.

Held: that, as against complainant, the recitals in the deeds could not be relied on as proof of such payment.

Held: that the evidence was inadmissible for any purpose. T,he case is stated in the opinion. Mr. II. J. May for plaintiffs in error. Mr. A. R. Garland filed a brief for same. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Maury for defendants in error.

Held: the first trial, whether it resulted in a verdict or not, and although the verdict and judgment may have been set aside; because the express requirement was that the application for removal must, in any event, be made before or- at' the term at' which said cause could be first tried.

This was au action on a bond in the penal sum of $41,000, given by-the defendant Thompson.-and his sureties for the exportation of certain distilled spirits.

ORIGINAL. The collector of customs at the port of New York seized a British built steam pleasure yacht, purchased in England by a citizen of the United States, and duly entered at that port, the seizure being for the alleged reason that the vessel was liable to duty as an imported article.

Held: that this was error. The court stated the case as follows-: This action was originally commenced in the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, by Samuel Kaiser against H. R. *489 Claflin & Co., alleged to be a firm composed of plaintiffs in error and H. B. Claflin, and L. Levinson & Co., another firm, composed of L., Michael, and Max Levinson, all averred to. be citizens of New York, to recover damages for the…

Held: that a writ of mandamus' should not issue.

Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547 (1892), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that not incriminating an individual for testimony was not the same as not requiring them to testify at all. The court reasoned that as long as evidence arising from the compelled testimony could incriminate the individual in any way, the Fifth Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination was not satisfied. The court then adopted the broader "transactional immunity" rule.

Held: That the first section of the act of July 23, 1866, must be construed in connection with section two of that act, and, as thus construed, it did not confirm the selections under the 500,000 acre grant, those selections not having been made of lands previously surveyed by authority of the United States: but said section, thus construed, did confirm the lands selected in lieu of the school sections taken by the…

This action was brought against the collector of customs at the port of San Francisco, to recover the value of ten packages of tea imported by the plaintiffs in August, 1889.

Held: we submit, that the prepared surface put on each match box contained in the importation showed an intention that the box should perform an important, not to say necessary, function in the consumption of its contents. Indeed, it is clear that safety matches would hardly be merchantable without a prepared surface on each box.

The court stated the case as follows: This action was brought upon the official bond of the late James A. McKee, marshal of the United States for the Northern District of Texas, to recover damages for the seizure of certain goods, wares and merchandise, under attachments sued out from the court below, January 25,- 1884, by Crow, Hargardine & Go. and Goodbar, White & Co., respectively, against the property of Moseley Brothers, a firm composed of W. P. Moseley, S. P. Moseley,…

Held: and acted in accordance therewith for' many years, that it was entitled to the percentage pay for the portion of the line so constructed, and to full pay for the remainder.

Held: under such allegations, that the three instruments were to be treated as one, and together making a general assignment with preferences. The case went back for trial, and upon the testimony it appeared that one of the mortgages was accepted by the mortgagee without any knowledge of the contemplated assignment ; and in 55 Iowa it was held that such mortgage was good.

Held: that the only Federal question raised in the cáse at the trial was not neces *637 sarily involved in the trial-of the issue under the second count, and that, as the judgment could be sustained under that count, this court was without jurisdiction.

Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651 (1892), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that upheld the constitutionality of a provision in the Immigration Act of 1891, a follow-up to the Immigration Act of 1882. The Immigration Act of 1891 further federalized immigration and nationality law, expanded immigration inspection, and established the Office of Superintendent of Immigration. The case arose concerning Nishimura Ekiu, a Japanese woman who came to the United States at the port of San Francisco, where she was then denied admission as a public charge.

Held: has a right to rely upon the assessment roll, and if his land be not upon it, to assume that it will not be sold; but on the contrary, is liable to be placed upon the roll of the succeeding year. But is he bound to hunt through the assessment roll beyond the proper official description to seo if his land may not be found described by some, term which is more or less commonly used in the community ?

The court stated the case as follows: On June 7th and 10th, 1887, respectively, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Eé Railroad Company in Chicago, the defendant in error, filed two petitions in the County Court of Cook County, Illinois, to condemn the right of way through, certain lands. The present plaintiff in error was made a party defendant to each of those proceedings.

Held: It was proper to admit in evidence a protest filed by the importer with the re-appraisers, as a paper showing what rights the importer claimed, and especially his claim that the merchant appraiser was not qualified; (2) A motion to direct a verdict for the defendant was properly denied, the court having ruled in accordance, with the decision of this court in Auffmordt v. Hedden, 137 U. S. 310 , and having instructed…

Held: at the time of the commencement of the suit, by the Illinois Trust and Savings Bank, and was not taken up or purchased by Sidway until some time in 1883, after the commencement of the suit, up to which time said bank was its holder for value, as collateral security to the demand note *685 of Sidway, of which, it was also holder for value, such subsequent payment or purchase of the note would confer upon Sidway no…

Held: Evidence drawn out on the cross-examination of a witness, Which has a bearing on the testimony given by him on his direct examination, is competent, especially where ■ it relates to -a part of the same conversation; (2) An inquiry as to what conversation was had with the plaintiff’s agent is not competent, if it does not appear what the subject of the conversation was, or what was intended to be proved by it; (3) In…