Volume 182 — United States Reports

DeLima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 (1901), was one of a group of the first Insular Cases decided by the US Supreme Court. The case was argued on January 8–11, 1901 and was decided on May 27, 1901.

These were petitions for a review of two decisions of the board of general appraisers, holding subject to duty certain merchandise, imported, in one case from Porto Eico, and in the other, from Honolulu, in the Hawaiian Islands. The action of the board of general appraisers in each case was affirmed.

Held: first, that the duties could not be recovered because they were not paid under protest, and, second, that Congress did not intend to confer upon the Court of Claims jurisdiction of cases arising under the revenue laws, inasmuch as, by the act of February 26,1845, 5 Stat. 727 , c. 22, Congress had given a right of action against the collector in favor of persons “ who have paid, or shall hereafter pay, money, as and…

This was a petition to the Court of Claims by a British subject, to recover duties exacted by the collector of the port of San Juan, and paid under protest, upon goods, wares, and merchandise of the growth,' produce, or manufacture of the United States, between August 12, 1898, and December'5, 1899. The same demurrer was filed and the same judgment was-entered as in the preceding case.

Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), was a case in which the US Supreme Court decided whether US territories were subject to the provisions and protections of the US Constitution. The issue is sometimes stated as whether the Constitution follows the flag. The decision narrowly held that the Constitution does not necessarily apply to territories. Instead, the US Congress has jurisdiction to create law within territories in certain circumstances, particularly those dealing with revenue, which would not be allowed by the Constitution for US states. It has become known as one of the "Insular Cases".

This was a libel filed in the District Court for the Southern District of New York to recover spoken pilotage upon the American built steamship Ponce, belonging to the defendant, a New York corporation. The facts were that libellant, on June 25, 1900, offered his service as a Sandy Hook pilot to the master of the Ponce, then about entering the harbor of New York, her port of distination, from the port of San Juan, in the Island of Porto Rico.

This was a petition to the justices of the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk, for a writ of certiorari to the Board of Sewer Commissioners of the city of Brockton, directing them to bring up certain proceedings connected with the assessment of taxes upon petitioner’s land to the amount of $42.53, for the maintenance and operation of a public sewer, and for an order quashing the proceedings. The petitioner alleged the assessment to be illegal and void: 1..

Held: contrary to the English, but conformably to the continental authorities, that a vessel was liable for the consequences of a collision through the negligence of a pilot taken compulsorily on board, although it was admitted that, if .the action had been at common law against the owner, and probably also in personam in admiralty, there could have been no recovery, as a compulsory pilot is in no sense the agent or…

<p>The action of the Supreme Court of Illinois in this case on April 17, 1901; was a full compliance with the mandate of this court in this case, 177 U. S. 51.</p>

Appellant filed his petition in the Court of Claims, October 13, 1897, and an amended petition October 27, 1899, seeking to recover salary as United States Commissioner in the Indian Territory, at the rate of $1500 per annum, from February 1, 1896, to September 30, 1899, aggregating $5375.

This is a writ of error to review a judgment of the Supreme Court of Alabama affirming a judgment in favor of John N. Craft, the defendant in error herein. The judgment thus affirmed was entered by a lower state tribunal upon a verdict rendered on the second trial of an action in ejectment, wherein Jetta Simon, plaintiff in error herein, was plaintiff. In brief, the facts are as follows: In 1889, Jetta Simon, a widow, resided in Mobile, Alabama, with several minor children.

In-proceedings in bankruptcy in the matter of Frank Brothers, bankrupts, in the District Court for the Northern- District of Illinois, the appellants filed a claim for goods, wares and merchandise, sold and delivered to said bankrupt firm for the sum of $3098.98. The claim was allowed, and subsequently a dividend of fifteen per cent was paid thereon.

<p>Under the circumstances set forth in its opinion this court thinks that the rule respecting appeals to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia must receive the interpretation here which was given to it by the Court of Appeals.</p>

The petitioners and complainants, being residents of the State and city of New York, commenced this suit in equity in the United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois against certain of the defendants composing the governing committee of the Chicago Stock Exchange, to recover funds deposited with them, in trust, and also to recover damages against other defendants composing the firm of Jamieson & Company, brokers belonging to the exchange, alleged to…

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP COLORADO.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>appeal from the court of claims.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Held: that on the facts proved in this case no such contract was proved against the United States, and that if the petitioners have suffered injury, it has been through the infringement of their patent, and not by a breach of contract.

Held: or to whom they might have been transferred; That none of said stock was taken or purchased or procured by the bank to- prevent any losses or loss upon debts previously contracted in good faith or purchased in any way authorized by law, but the same was purchased by the bank with its funds for the purpose of preventing the stock from being sold in open market, and to prevent any investigation being made as to the…

The case is stated in the opinion. The counsel were the same as in Lantry v. Wallace, and the two cases were argued together.

The plaintiff in error is a national banking association, doing business at Ogden City, Weber County, Utah. The action below was brought by the bank to enjoin the collection of the alleged illegal portion of certain taxes levied against its shareholders for the year 1898.

<p>The court below, of original jurisdiction in this case, had authority, upon newly discovered evidence, to grant to the railway company a new trial, after the final decision of this case at law in that court.</p> <p>It was competent for Congress to confer upon such court, established under the au ohority of the United States, the power to grant a new trial in an action at law upon grounds discovered after the expiration of the term at which the verdict or decision was rendered.</p> <p>The statute does not declare that the right to apply for a new trial upon newly discovered evidence after the term shall be any the less when the original term is superseded; nor that a new trial of an'action at law shall not be applied for or granted, while the case is pending in the appellate court.</p> <p>The statute of Arkansas in question is applicable only to actions and proceedings at law in the courts of that Territory, as distinguished from suits or proceedings in equity; and as application under that statute, within the time pi'escribed, for a new trial in an action at law, upon grounds discovered after the term at which the verdict or decision was rendered, was a matter of right, which did not require leave of any court.</p>

This action was begun by the defendant in error in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. In substance he asserted in his declaration a right to recover from the District of Columbia a specified sum, upon the ground that by its negligence, on November 26,1896, he had sustained serious personal' injury.

In June, 1896, Dora Marks brought an action in the circuit court of Cook County, Illinois, against Lewis Jacobs, for false representations and deceit whereby' the plaintiff had been induced to become a member of a corporation known "as the Chicago Furniture and Lumber-Company of Escanaba, Michigan, composed of said Jacobs and one Nathan Neufeldt, and to pay into such concern the sum of $5000.

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