Volume 170 — United States Reports

Held: that it is difficult to see how the proviso can he regarded as part of the treaty, or as limiting at all the terms of the grant.

This was an action commenced by the special administrator ■of the estate of Andrew J. Davis, deceased, and continued in the name of his successor, Leyson, administrator with the will annexed, against Andrew J. Davis, Jr., and the First National Bank of Butte, in the District Court of the State of Montana for the county of Silver Bow, to recover nine hundred and fifty shares of the capital stock of the defendant bank, alleged by the administrator to belong to' the estate of…

This was an action of ejectment brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, in February, 1896, by the Illinois Steel Company, a corporation of the State of Illinois, against John Budzisz and August Budzisz, citizens of the State of Wisconsin, to recover certain lots or parcels of land in the fifth ward of the city of Milwaukee.

. On October 5, 1895, Hosmer B._ Parsons, the plaintiff in error, filed in the Supreme-Cour-t ef-ihe District .of Columbia'' his'petition against the District of Columbia and John "W. Boss, Charles F. Powell and George Truesdell, Commissioners ■ ©f the District, complaining, as illegal, of a certain charge or special assessment against land belonging to the petitioner, as a water-main tax, or assessment, for laying a water main in the street on which said land abuts.

Held: affirming the Supreme Court of Ohio, that the legislative power of a city may control the question of grades and crossings of its streets, and a power to that effect, when duly exercised by ordinances, will override any license- or consent previously .given, by which the control of a certain street had been surr rendered; that such matters cannot, from their public nature, be made the subject of a final and…

The Laclede Gas Light Company fiied its petition for mandamus in “the name of the State óf Missouri, on its relation, against Michael J. Murphy, street commissioner of the city, of St. Louis, on November 26, 1894, in the Supreme Court of that State.

Held: by reason of the act of Congress,’ and of service upon its president in the District; of Columbia, to be liable to an action in the District by a passenger for an injury happening in the.

Held: by Judge Nixon, and by Judge Severens, that such a claim by a tow against her tug is entitled to priority of payment over liens on the tug for previous repairs or supplies. The M. Vandercook, 24 Fed. Rep. 472, 478; The Daisy Day, 40 Fed. Rep. 538. The decisions of this court are in accordance with the latter view, and are inconsistent with any other.

<p>On the authority of Louisville Water Company v. Ciarle, 143 U. S. 1, which is affirmed, it is held that the exemption from taxation acquired by the Louisville Water Company under the act of Kentucky of April 22, 1882, c. 1349, was not withdrawn except from the day on which the act of May 17, 1886, known as the Hewitt Act, took effect; and the company cannot be held for taxes which were assessed and became due prior to September 14, 1886, when that act took effect.</p>

Held: that the six months from “the death or dismissal or retirement of the employé from the service of the employer,” within which *134 his fraud or dishonesty must have been discovered in order to hold the company liable, did not commence to run prior to the date last named.

Held: That this language was susceptible of two constructions, equally reasonable, and that the one most favorable to the insured should be accepted, namely, that the required written statement of loss arising from the fraud or dishonesty of the president of -the bank, based upon its accounts, was admissible in evidence, if suit was brought, and was prima facie sufficient to establish the loss.

<p>When the jurisdiction of this court is invoked for the protection, against the final judgment of the highest court of a State, of sonje title, right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, it must appear expressly or by necessary intendment,, from the . record, that such right, title, privilege or immunity was specially “set up or claimed” under such Constitution or laws; as the jurisdiction of this court cannot arise in such case-from inferencé, but only from averments so distinct and positive as to place it beyond question that the party bringing the case up intended to assert a Federal right.</p>

Hawker v. New York, 170 U.S. 189 (1898), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a New York state law preventing convicted felons from practicing medicine, even when the felony conviction occurred before the law was enacted.

Held: that this court has no jurisdiction, and that the appeal must be.dismissed. *206 Simon J. Murphy and others filed a bill against P. H. Kir wan, as United States Surveyor General for the District of Minnesota, and Thomas H. Gross well, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota, which alleged in- substance that complainants were the owners of certain lands on the shores of Cedar Island…

<p>ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE.</p> <p>The plaintiff in error was indicted for violating section 5486. of the Revised Statutes' of the United States. The indictment contained nine counts. They, respéctively, charged the withholding and detention of certain sums of money for pension fees in excess of the amount allowed by the statute to be . charged, to wit, the first, third, fifth, seventh and ninth counts; 'that defendant withheld, respectively, from William Anderson, Isaac Bloodson, Ann Galloway and Whitfield Pryor the. sev- ' eral sums of $486.40, $517.20^ $120.13; $116 and. $15.80; the second, fourth, sixth and eighth counts charged that, he “ did demand from said persons, respectively, the said sévéral sums.” The jury returned a verdict of guilty as to the first and third counts, a verdict of not guilty as to the-second, fourth, seventh, eighth and ninth counts, and a nolle prosequi was entered by the United States attorney as to the fifth and sixth counts.</p> <p>There are eleven assignments of error. The first part of the eighth and eleventh assignments relate to a failure on the part of.the court to give certain instructions. The record •does not show that there was a request for such instructions. .The second, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, .part of the eighth, ninth and tenth .assignments relate to alleged error in the instructions given by the court. No exception is shown by the record to have been taken.' The twelfth and thirteenth assignments of error are based upon the alleged fact that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. The third as? sign me nf of error is-based upon the refusal of the court to give an instruction which was requested.</p> <p>The statement of the record is, “ the defendant asked -the following special instruction, which was refused’: ‘Unléss you find from the evidence that the defendant was the attorney, ■agent or other person engaged in prosecuting the pension claims of Anderson, Haynes and Bloodson, the court instructs you to find for the defendant. I think I have given this instruction in the general charge, and believing the charge on this point is sufficiently full, further instruction is declined. Clark, J.’ To which action and ruling of the court in so refusing to give said special instructions the defendant then and there excepted.”</p>

Williams v. Mississippi, 170 U.S. 213 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case that reviewed provisions of the 1890 Mississippi constitution and its statutes that set requirements for voter registration, including poll tax, literacy tests, the grandfather clause, and the requirement that only registered voters could serve on juries. The plaintiff, Henry Williams, claimed that Mississippi's voting laws were upheld with the intent to disenfranchise African Americans, thus violating the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court did not find discrimination in the state's laws because, even though the laws made discrimination possible, the laws themselves did not discriminate against African Americans.

Held: that in arriving at. this conclusion the state courts did not determine whether a's to those other lands any vested right of the railway company had or had not been impaired or taken away; and'that this court cannot hold that the' company was denied by the judgment of tliose courts in this respect any title, right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. *227 This was a suit…

Held: that that constitutional provision, as thus enforced, impairs the obligation of the contract between tile State and the railway company, and cannot be sustained.

Held: that there was no error in this. Latham v. The Queen, 8 B. & S. 635, cited, quoted from, and approved as to the point that, “ in a criminal case, where each count is, as it were, a separate indictment, one count not having been disposed of no more affects the proceedings with error than if there were two indictments.” The plaintiff in error was indicted for alleged violations of section 5457 of the Revised Statutes.

Held: That as the negligence of the company was clearly proven, there can be no doubt of its liability under the act of February 13, 1893, c. 105, known as the “ Harter Act;” (2) That the clause limiting the amount of the carriers’ liability is to be construed as a statement that tile carrier shall not be liable to any amount for goods exceeding $100 per package; and'beingso interpreted, that it is a clear attempt on the…

Held: as we have seen, that the latter is to be regarded as new property, and the $20,000 and other property not taxed are not, therefore, exemptions. - In this view the Illinois court is in harmony with the majority of other courts of the country. We concur in the reasoning. It is true that the amount of the exemption is greater in the Illinois law than in any other, but the right to exempt cannot depend on that.

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

<p>Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Illinois.</p>

For three quarters of a century prior to 1887 the Hartford' Bridge Company had under a charter from the State, (Priv. Laws Conn. vol. 1, p. 254, Resolve of October, 1808), maintained a toll bridge over the Connecticut River at the city of Hartford. It also maintained on the east side of the bridge and connected therewith a causeway across the lowlands adjacent to the river.

Held: that the action taken by the Land Department was a finality, and that the title passed, all having been done which was prescribed by the statute.

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

Held: that in the contract with the Virginia and Alabama Coal Company and in that with the Sloss Iron and- Steel Company, it was the intention of the parties that the coal furnished was t.o be used in the operation of the lines of- the Central -Company, and that the Coal Companies looked to the earnings of the Central ^ystem as the source from which the funds to pay for the coal to be furnished were to bo derived.

’ This action was brought'against Frederick W. Smith and the sureties on his official bond as receiver of public moneys in the Tucson land district in the Territory of Arizona.

Held: that the trial court did not err in directing a verdict for the defendant. By an act of the general assembly of the Province of Pennsylvania, passed on March 11, 1752, Penn. Provincial Laws 1775, p. 235, c: 2,. the county of Northampton was erected out of a portion of the county of Bucks. In the sixth and seventh clauses of the act it was provided as follows: • “ VI.

<p>Postage stamps belonging to the United States are personal property, within the'"leaning of Rev. Stat. § 5456, which enacts that “ Every person who robs.another of any liind or description of personal property belonging to the United States, or feloniously takes and carries away the same, shall be punished by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars,'or by imprisonment at hard labor not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment,” and may be made the subject of larceny.</p>

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

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

Held: are *448 declared contraband, they cease to belong to commerce, and', are within the jurisdiction of the police power ; but so long as. their manufacture, purchase or sale, and their use as a beverage in any form or by any person are recognized, they belong to commerce and are without the domain of the police power.”’ But this restricts the police power to the mere right to forbid,, and denies any and all authority…

The appellee, a corporation of the State of California, began this action against the present plaintiffs in error, citizens of the State of South Carolina; averring the alleged wrongful seizure by the defendants Bahr and Scott, at a railroad depot in the city of Charleston, South Carolina, of packages of wines and brandies, the property of the plaintiff.

Held: that nothing more was required to show the locality of the offence. The indictment was claimed to be demurrable because it charged the homicide to have been caused by shooting and drowning, means inconsistent with each other, and not of the same species. Held, that the indictment-was sufficient, and was not objectionable on the ground of duplicity or uncertainty.

<p>The courts of a State may take cognizance of a suit brought by the State, in its own courts, against citizens of other States, subject to the right of the defendant to have such suit removed to the proper Circuit Court of the United States, whenever the removal thereof is authorized by a,ct of Congress, and subject.also to'the authority of this court to rerview the final judgment of the ‘ state court, if the case be one within its appellate jurisdiction.</p>

Held: the Court of Appeals is not a court in or for any district. The act creating’ that court ( 26 Stat. 826 , c. 517) does not create a court in or for a district, but one in and for each circuit. The relations of that court to a district are similar to those of this court. The Supreme Court is not a court in or of or for a district, but in and of. and for the United States as a whole.

<p>It is not part of the official duties of the District' Attorney of the district, in which, at the time, a session of the Court of Appeals is held,-to assume the management and control of the government cases in that court.</p>

■ This was an action originally instituted by Alexander Reeder against the. Texas and Pacific Railway Company in the District Court of 'Marion County,- -Texas, to recover for personal injuries sustained by Reeder. The action was after-wards removed upon petition of the defendant to the United-States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Held: overruling the case of Mitchell v. Tilghman, 19 Wall. 287 , .that, a patent ma3r be validly granted for carrying a principle into effect ; and if the patentee suggests and discovers not only the principle, but suggests and invents how it may be applied to a practical result by • mechanical contrivances and apparatus, and shows that he is aware that no particular sort or. modification of form of apparatus is…

<p>CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

Held: that the power to legislate -delegated to the territorial legislature included -the right to pass and enforce laws for the assessment and collection of taxes; that the act of March 5, 1895, was a valid enactment, under which it was competent for the taxing authorities of an organized county to levy and collect taxes on personal property situated within the attached reservations, and belonging to other persons than…

Held: whether at sti'ch an election a majority voted in favor of the^issue of bonds, whether the terms of the subscription have been complied with, and matters of a kindred nature which either expressly or by necessary implication are to be determined in the first instance by the officers of the county, will in favor of- a bona fide holder be conclusively presumed to have been fully performed, provided' the bonds contain…

•ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP IOAVA. This was' a writ of error to review the conviction of the plaintiff in error upon an indictment found against him by the grand jury for the Southern District of Iowa, April 28, 1896, for a violation of section'16 of the act of February 8,' 1875, c. 36, 18 Stat. 307, in carrying on the business of a retail dealer in liquors without the payment of the special tax required by law.

<p>On an appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court of a Territory, the findings of fact are conclusive upon this court.</p> <p>One general exception to thirteen different instructions cannot be considered sufficient when each instruction consists of different propositions of law and fact, and many of them are clearly correct.</p>

A Judgment or decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York having been made and entered on the! 4th day of January* 1895, by which it was ordered, adjudged and decreed that there was no error in certain proceedings before, the board of United States general appraisers, and that their decision be in all things affirmed, and an appeal having been duly taken from said judgment or decree to the Circuit Court of Appeals by the United…

Held: among other things, that the bales of tobacco had been properly opened and examined by the appraiser, although only one bale in ten had been examined ; that a fair average had been made under section 2901 of the Bevised Statutes, and while the examination might not have furnished a precise description of the goods, the board held there was no reason to suppose that it was not as favorable to the importer as to the…

This action was begun by appellant Hayes to obtain the confirmation of an alleged complete and perfect title to a tract of land of the area of 130,138.98 acres, situated in the coúnty of Socorro, Territory of New Mexico.

The Carib Prince, an iron and steel steamer, was built in England in the spring of 1893, for the carriage of passengers and freight. She was fitted with a peak tank, triangular in shape, extending from the bottom of the ship to the between decks, the tank being intended to hold water to be used as ballast in trimming the ship. The sides of the tank were the sides of the ship; the after end of it was the collision bulkheads.

<p>It is the duty of a railroad company to use reasonable care to see that the cars employed on its road, both those which it owns and those which it_ Receives from other roads, are in good order and fit for the purposes for which they are intended; and this duty it owes to its employés as well as to the public.</p> <p>An employé of a.railroad company has a right to rely upon this duty being performed, as, while in entering the employment he. assumes the ordinary risks incident to the business, he does not assume the risk arising from his employer’s neglect to perform the duties owing to him with respect to the appliances furnished.</p>

" CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. • The Western Manufacturing Company, a corporation of the State of Nebraska, brought its action against Kingman & Company, a corporation of the State of Illinois, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska, seeking a recovery of various amounts, on four causes of action, and demanding judgment in the aggregate for the sum of $18,990.

This suit was originally instituted. February 2, 1S92, by the Algodones Land Company, under provisions of an act entitled “ An act to establish a Court of Private Land Claims and to provide for the settlement of private land claims in certain States and Territories,” approved March 3,1891, c.: 539, 26 Stat. 854. Pending the litigation, the Algodones Land Company conveyed the property to Earl B. Coe, and upon motion the action was revived in his name.