Volume 165 — United States Reports

Held: in á case- tried at Liverpool in 1853, that, if locomotives áre sent through the country emitting sparks,.the persons doing so incur all the responsibilities of insurers; that they were liable for all the consequences.” ' In Vaughan v. Taff Vale Railway, (1858) 3 H. & N. 743, the Court of Exchequer held that a railway company, expressly authorized by its charter to-use locomotive engines on. its railway, was…

Held: the court cannot compel the defendant to perform it after his power to perform has ceased. And if a sue-' cessor in office may be substituted, he may be mulcted in costs for the default of his predecessor, without any delinquency of his own. Besides, were a demand made upon' him, he might discharge the duty, and render the interposition of the court unnecessary.

Held: that it was too late. An exception was saved as to the taking of notes "by a juryman; but, as the record does not show that any notes were taken, there is nothing for it to rest on.

Ik the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of South Carolina, in February, 1895, two suits at law were brought.by James Donald against J. M. Scott,.and one by Donald against Gardner etc., wherein plaintiff sought to recover damages caused by the action of the defendants, who wpre state constables of the State of South Carolina, in seizing and carrying away several packages of wines and liquors belonging to the plaintiffs, and, at the time'of the seizure, in…

Held: that such statements sufficiently concede that the pecuniary value of plaintiff’s rights in controversy exceed the value of two thousand doGSars; and that, it cannot be reasonably claimed that the plaintiff must' postpone his application to the Circuit Court, as a court of equity, until his property to an amount exceeding in value two thousand dollars has been actually seized and confiscated, and when the preventive…

<p>The report of the commissioners appointed February 3, 1896, 160 TJ. S. 688, -. to find and re-mark the boundary line between the States of Missouri and Iowa, is confirmed; and it is. ordered that that boundary Une be as de- ' lineated and set forth in said report.,;.;....</p>

Held: *145 (1) That as the Supreme Court of the State held that the equitable ' title apparently conveyed by the proceedings in the United States ■ Land Office in 1858 was of no effect, and the tax titles based thereon of no validity, it was apparent that a right claimed under the authority of the United States was denied, and, therefore, this court had jurisdiction; • (2) That, though a formal certificate of location was…

ON April 5, 1889, tbe legislature of the State of Texas passed this act: “ Section 1.

The case is stated in the opinion. submitted on his brief, on which were Miss Glara S. Foltz and the plaintiff in error.

This was a claim by a lieutenant in the Navy of the United States for sea pay while on board the St. Mary’s in the harbor of New York. ‘ The facts found by the Court of Claims were in substance.as follows: The St. Mary’s was a sailing vessel', owned and employed by the United States ; and had been furnished for educational purposes by the Secretary of the Navy, upon the application of the Governor of the State of New York, under the act of Congress of June 20, 1874, c. 339,…

This-action was originally instituted in June, 1893, before a justice of the peace in the then Territory of. Utah,-to recover the sum of ten dollars for damages alleged to have resulted from destroying the banks on the side of and from rolling rocks into and upon a public highway situated on a hillside, caused by a band of sheep owned by the defendant while being driven upon such highway.

Held: that this,, being for the benefit of the accused, was not error of which he could complain.

Held: that even if the stream was navigable it was nevertheless competent for the state authority to obstruct or entirely close it. because, being wholly within the State, it was under its exclusive jurisdiction and authority.

Held: or at such other place in the district as the nature of the business may require.” And by § 729, that “the trial of offences punishable with death shall be had in the county where the offence was committed, where it can be done without great inconvenience.” Jurisdiction in the trial courts being thus bounded by district, we find many acts, some increasing in a district the places of trial, and others in terms…

<p>One furnishing supplies or making repairs on the order simply of a person acquiring the control arid possession of a vessel under a charter party requiring him to provide and pay for all the coals, etc., cannot .acquire a maritime lien if the circumstances attending the transaction put him on inquiry as to the existence -and terms of such charier party, and he fails to make the inquiry, and chooses to act on a mere belief that the vessel will be liable for his claim.</p>

Held: that the Claim of a Federal right came too late, so far as the revisory power of this court is concerned. The'case is stated in the opinion. Mr. Leverett Bell (with- whom was Mr. Henry B-. Davis on the brief) for plaintiff in error. Mr. IF. C. Marshall appeared for defendant in error, but the court declined to hear further argument.

CALIFORNIA. This was an appeal from a judgment of the District Gourt for the Northern District of California,'rendered August 5, 1895, dismissing a writ of Habeas corpus issued upon the petition of Robert Robertson, P. H. Olsen, John Bradley arid Morris Hansen.

Under an act of . the general assembly of Indiana of March. 6,-1891,’c. 99, in respect of the assessment and collection of taxes-up,on.all property within-the jurisdiction of the State, it was provided, that payment of the taxes in the year succeeding their assessment might be made in two instalments, and a penalty of ten per cent was denounced for the first iix months of delinquency and of an additional six per cent for the second six months. - On .March 6, 1893, an…

<p>ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COÜRT O.E THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion;</p>

The appellee herein filed his petition against the United States and the Comanche and Kiowa Indians in the Court of Claims on the 4th day of September, 1891, in which he claimed to recover damages for the destruction'of his property on the 20th day of January, 1868, by the Comanche and Kiowa Indians, in amity with the United States, at Indian Creek, in Cooke County,' Texas. ’ The property destroyed consisted of horses, mares and colts, of the alleged value of $1390.

<p>3RROR.TO THE DISTRICT COURT OE THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>APPEALS FP.OM THE COUET OF CLAIMS.</p> <p>The. case is stated in the opinion.</p>

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

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CO0RT OE CLAIMS.</p> <p>The ease is stated in the opinion.</p>

Held: both in this country and in England, that, upon the failure of the trust declared in the deed, although depending upon a contingency which might not happen within the period prescribed by the rule against perpetuities, the resulting trust to the grantor and his heirs is not invalidated by the rule.

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

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>The provisions in §§ 4, 5 and 7 of the act of September 19, 1890, c. 907, ' conferring upon the Secretary of War authority concerning bridges over navigable water-ways, do not deprive the States of authority to bridge such streams, but simply create an additional and cumulative remedy to prevent such structures, although lawfully authorized, from interfering with commerce.</p>

ON July 2, 1836, Congress passed an act, q. 263, 5 Stat. -70,■ directing tbe survey aiid platting of certain tracts of land in Iowa into towns, among others the town (now city) of Burlington, the work to be done under the direction of the surveyor general of the public lands, with á proviso “that a quantity of land -of proper width, on the river banks,. . . . and running with the said river the whole length of said towns, shall be reserved from sale (ás shall also the public…

Held: that the objection was properly overruled.

Óíj- November • 20, 1889, a patent was issued by the United States to Thomas Reed for the southwest quarter of .the northeast quarter and lots 1 and 2 of section 30, township 63, north of range 11 west, containing one hundred and twelve acres, in the Duluth landMistrict of the State of Minnesota.- On October Í3, 1891, the United States filed in the Circuit Court of the .District of Minnesota a bill in equity' to set aside such patent, making Thomas Reed the.patentee and the…

The controversy in tins case respects the northeast quarter of section 14, township'5, range 3, situate'in Saline County, Nebraska. The facts are these :. The State of Nebraska upon its admission into the Union became . entitled, by virtue'of section 8 of the act of Congress, September 4, 1841, c. 16, 5 Stat. 453, 455, tó-500,000 acres of public land to aid in promoting its internal improvements.

COURT OF APPEALS OF TUE DISTRICT OF Columbia.- This, was a bill in equity filed in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, by Mary E. Patten, Josephiné A. Patten, Edith Patten antb Helen Patten, against their sister, Augusta P. Glover, wife of John M. Glover, in ;aid' of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as an orphans’ court, to construe the will of their mother, Anastasia Patten, and to charge the estate with certain claims of the complainants prior to a general…

Held: any public assertion by legislative act of the ownership of the Stake, after default of the grantee- — such as an act resuming control of them vand appropriating them to particular uses, or granting -them to *434 others to carry out the original object — will be equally effectual and operative.” These cases were all quoted with approval, and the doctrine reasserted in McMicken v. United States, 97 U. S. 204 , 217;…

ORIGINAL. This is a petition for the vacating-of or prohibition upon certain orders of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California in the suit of Stateler'v. The California National Bank 'of San Frcmeiseo et at., enjoining (as was .held) the bank and John Chet wood,.

Held: and ruled by the Secretary of the Interior and the other officers .of the land department of the United States: (a) That the line of a railroad became and was definitely fixed so as to -attach the grant to the odd-numbered sections within the granted limits as soon as surveyed, staked out and marked on the face of the earth; and (b) That a homestead entry in all respects regulár and legal excepted the land covered…

' This was a-bill filed by the United States in the Circuit ‘Court of the United - States for the District of Minnesota against-the Winona and St. Peter Railroad Company, the Winona and St. Peter Land Company, and Thomas Marshall, • Jr. The suit was one to set aside the certification of a patent made to the State of Minnesota for the benefit of the defendant railroad company of the northeast quarter of section 35, township 106 north, range 18 west, which certification was of…

Held: that the action of the court was commendable in this particular, and that this ruling, and the immediate withdrawal of the remark by the District Attorney, condoned his error in making it, if his remark could be deemed a prejudicial error. There was no error in the remarks of the District Attorney as to massage treatment.

Held: in accordance with that decision, that the appellee was not obliged to return to the United States, as a part of the emoluments of his office, sums received for his services in naturalization proceedings. But the erroneous ruling of that court upon the other branch of the case requires its Judgment to be reversed, and the case remanded (pursuant to the act of July 16, 1894, c. 138. § 17; 28 Stat.

Held: that such leaving the matter of designating the marks, brands and stamps to the Commissioner, with' the approval of the Secretary, involved no unconstitutional delegation of power.

Held: that a judgment for the defendant in the high- •' est court of the State might be reviewed by this court on writ of error.

Held: that such routine orders did not make the President his accuser or prosecutor. In detailing officers to compose a court-martial the presumption is that the President acts in pursuance of law ; and its sentence cannot be collator- *554 ally attacked by going into an inquiry, whether the trial by officers inferior-in rank to the accused wa.s or was not avoidable.

of the case, is as follows: “A testator gave his estate, both real and personal, to his son E. T., ‘ during his natural life, and after… Held: that the rule in Shelley's case did not apply, and that the estate' in E. T., the first taken, was not a fee-tail, but was an estate for life, with remainder in fee to the issue of his body, contingent upon the birth of such issue, and in default of such issue, remainder for life to his widow and two sisters, with remainder over in…

Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 (1897), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States in which a unanimous bench struck down a Louisiana statute for violating an individual's liberty of contract. It was the first case in which the Supreme Court interpreted the word liberty in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to mean economic liberty. The decision marked the beginning of the Lochner era during which the Supreme Court struck many state regulations for infringing on an individual's right to contract. The Lochner era lasted 40 years and ended when West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish was decided in 1937.

<p>The act of April 4,1874, c. 80, legislating for all the Territories, secures to their inhabitants all the rights of trial by jury, as they existed at the common law.</p> <p>It is within the power of a legislature of a Territory to provide that, on a trial of a common law action, the court may, imaddition to the general verdict, require specific answers to special interrogatories, and, when a conflict is found between the two, render such judgment as the answers to the special questions compel.</p> <p>The doctrine of the civil law and that of the common law, touching tjie respective rights and duties of proprietors of upper and lower land as to the flow of surface-water are conflicting; and'it is the duty of this court, in cases involving such rights and duties, to follow the decisions of the local state courts, although it may involve apparently contradictory decisions.</p> <p>A territorial legislature has all the legislative power of a state legislature, except as limited by the Constitution, and by act of Congress; and, the legislature of New Mexico, having adopted the common law as the rule ' of practice and decision, this court is bound by it.</p>

Held: .was.paid'; that the company never consented to a transfer of the stock to its name on the books, or to that of its president, and that for seven years before the failure of- the bank, and at least five years before its embarrassments were known to the company or the public, the stock, with the assent of Kern, Blumer & Co. and the officers of the bank, stood in the namp of McCloskey or Ferris; that during all that…

Held: for the reasons given, that Wade got what he had bargained for, and was not deceived or misled in the premises. Under these circumstances the writ of error cannot be- maintained. Rev. Stat. § Y09. Writ dismissed.

<p>The statutes of New York regulating the heating of steam passenger oars, and directing guards and guard-posts to be placed on railroad bridges and trestles and the approaches thereto (paws of 1887, c. 616, Laws of ' 1888, c. 189), were passed in the exercise of powers resting in the State in the absence of action by Congress, and, when applied to interstate commerce, do not violate the Constitution of the United States.</p>

in the case, that (p. 83): “While the mere' delivery to a third person of a check or draft drawn by a creditor upon his debtor does not affect a legal transfer of the debt, where it appears that the… Held: despite the fact that a check had .been given, that the trial judge properly left it to. the jury, to determine under the particular circumstances whether the alleged debt had been assigned to the plaintiff.

Held: that Walker. & Co. had an equitable lien upon the bonds of Brown pledged to • the Union National Bank, and that those bonds had been returned to Brown'under such circumstances as to continue the lien against them in the hands of Mrs. Brown, to whom they had been given.by him. . - , To dedicate property to a particular purpose, tO".provide that-a specified tíreditor, and that creditor alone, shall be authorized to…

<p>The Spanish law did not, proprio vigore, confer upon every Spanish villa or town, a grant of four square leagues of land, to .be measured from the . centre of the plaza of such town.</p> <p>Although, under that law, all towns were not, on their organization, entitled by operation of law, to four square leagues, yet, at a time subsequent to the organization of Santa Eé, Spanish officials adopted the • theory that the normal'quantity which might be designated as the limits of new pueblos, to be thereafter created, was four square leagues.</p> <p>The rights of Santa Eé depend upon Spanish law as it existed prior to the adoption of that theory.</p> <p>An inchoate claijn, which could not have been asserted as an absolute right against the government of either Spain or Mexico, and which was subject to the uncontrolled discretion of Congress, is clearly not within the purview of the act of March 3', 1891, c. 589, creating the Court of Private Land Claims; but the duty of protecting such imperfect rights of property rests upon the political department of the government. ■</p>

<p>Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.</p>

<p>Error to the Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland.</p>

<p>Error to the. Supreme Court of the State of Washington.</p>

<p>Error to the .Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland.</p>