Volume 189 — United States Reports

This ivas an action for damages for the value of ore alleged to have been taken by the Kennedy Mining and Milling Company from ground belonging to the Argonaut Mining Company, situated in Amador County, California. The Kennedy Mining and Milling Company denied taking any ore or gold-bearing rock which was the property of the Argonaut Mining Company, and averred that it was the owner of the vein or lode from which the rock was taken.

This was a suit in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana for infringement of claims 1, 2, 3, 9, 10,11,15 and 20 of letters patent No. 356,322, issued January 18,1887, to Alva L. Kitselman and Davis M. Kitselman for an improvement in wire fabric machines ; of claims-1 and 2 of letters patent No. 289,507, issued December 4, 1883, to W. J. Davisson for an improved machine for making wire fabrics; of claims 2, 3 and 4 of letters patent No. 357,067,…

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

Murphy and others filed their bill of complaint in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota against Kirwan, as United States surveyor general for that district, and Thomas II. Oros well, as deputy surveyor, to- enjoin them from surveying, by direction of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, certain lands claimed by the Land Department to be unsurveyed public lands of the United States.

This was a bill in equity filed in the Circuit Court of the United States for theSouthern District of New York by John A. Brill and The J. G. Brill Company against The Peckham Motor Truck and Wheel Company and others, praying for injunction and accounting for infringement of letters patent No. 478,218, for an improvement in car trucks, issued July 5, 1892.

Held: on November 15, 1901, that the statute was not in violation of either, and affirmed the decrees of the chancellor and of the Court of Chancery Appeals. 108 Tennessee, 82. Thereupon a writ of error was sued out from this court, and the record was .filed and the cause docketed December 10,1901. No motion was made to advance the case, and it came on for argument and was argued March 12 and 13, 1903.

Held: that such was not the intention of the act. Robinson v. Caldwell, 165 U. S. 359 ; Loeb v. Trustees, 179 U. S. 472 ; American Sugar Refining Company v. New Orleans, supra.

<p>Under section 954, Kev, Stat., the Circuit Court has power in its discretion to allow plaintiff to amend his petition after judgment has been entered in his favor, but while, the court still has control of the record, and it is not an abuse of such discretion to permit an amendment setting up plaintiff’s citizenship, the fact being established and residence only having been pleaded, and where it appears that had the amendment not been made as it Was the Circuit Court of Appeals would have been constrained to reverse and remand with leave to make the amendment.</p>

E. N. Woodward et al. filed their petition in bankruptcy and were adjudicated bankrupts November 26, 1901.

Held: That under the land grant acts the railroad company did not acquire and could not have acquired an' interest in specific sections of land within the indemnity limits specified in the grant before their actual and approved selection under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, prior to the date of occupancy by the respective settlers.

Held: that where a duly qualified entryman made a bona fide settlement upon lands within the indemnity limit of the grant made by act of Congress of May 4, 1870, with the intention, whenever the way was opened by a survey, to enter the lands under the homestead laws, his rights were superior to those acquired, or that could have been acquired, by the railroad company under any selection by it of indemnity lands made after…

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.</p> <p>On April 28, 1891, Hannah Rogers and Frank J. Rogers, holders of the legal title to a tract of land in Alameda County, commenced in the Superior Court of that county an action in ejectment against Manuel S. De Cambra and others. The defendants answered with a general denial, and, as authorized by the practice in California, De Cambra filed a cross complaint in equity, alleging that the plaintiffs had obtained the legal title wrongfully and held it in trust for him, and prayed a decree quieting his title to the land. A demurrer to this cross complaint was sustained, and upon a trial of the action a judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, which judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of California, 132 California, 502, and thereupon this writ of error was sued out.</p>

This action was commenced on January 12, 1898, in the Circuit Court of Darlington County, South Carolina, by Bright Williamson against the Eastern Building and Loan Association of Syracuse, New York, to recover the face value of twenty-five shares of stock in the defendant association, less a sum theretofore borrowed b}"- the plaintiff from the association.

By section 828, Rev. Stat., clerks of the Circuit and District Courts áre allowed certain fees for searching records for judgments, decrees, etc., and certifying the results of such searches.

or statement of the points and principles intended to be decided by the court, which shall be published in the reports in lieu of that usually prepared by the reporter.” Hart, Ex., et al. v. Stribling et ux., 25 Florida, 435.

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF OKLAHOMA.</p> <p>This was an action of forcible entry and detainer, commenced by Penny, the defendant in error, in the Probate Court of Kay County, Oklahoma Territory, a court ad judged by, the Supreme Court of the Territory to have jurisdiction in such actions by virtue of sec. 4805, art. 13, chap. 67, and sec. 1562, art. 15, chap. 18, Rev. Stat. 1893. A judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the Territory, 11 Oklahoma, 474, and thereupon the case was brought here on a writ of error.. The testimony on the trial developed these facts : The parties contested in the Land Department the right to enter the tract in controversy as a homestead. The plaintiff’s contention was sustained, and he was permitted to make entry. Having received the homestead certificate, he commenced this •action.</p>

<p>Where there is a seeming contradiction between two clauses in a proclamation opening lands for settlement, the first clause being a special description of a strip of land, and the second being-found in a portion of the proclamation defining the purposes for which the strip is made, the first clause is entitled to preference.</p> <p>The strip of land referred to in the President’s proclamation of August 19, 1898, “ one hundred feet in width around and immediately within the outer boundaries of the entire tract of country to be opened to settlement,” ran around and immediately within the outer boundaries of the body of lands opened for settlement, and not around the outer boundaries of the entire tract specified in the cession and relinquishment of the Cherokee Indians.</p>

Held: ■ Y3 Minnesota, 332, that the prior mortgages were merged in the agreement, which created an equitable mortgage on the land, and remanded the case with instructions to the court below to determine the amount due upon such equitable mortgage and amend its findings of fact and conclusions of law accordingly.

This was a libel in rem filed in the District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, in admiralty, against the propeller Osceola, to recover damages for a personal injury sustained by one Patrick Shea, a seaman on board the vessel, through the negligence of the master.

<p>Although no Federal right, title or immunity was specially set up or claimed in the complaint, it is sufficient if it appears in the motion for new trial and in the assignment of error in the state Supreme Court. In this case it also appears from the opinion of the court that the question was whether the plaintiff in error had brought itself within the scope of an act of Congress upon which it relied.</p> <p>Under the rule of this court requiring opinions to be sent up with the rec- ■ ord, it is a sufficient compliance with the words “ specially set up and claimed” that the Federal question was fully considered in the opinion of the court, and ruled against the plaintiff in error.</p> <p>A party who, on complying with the provisions of an act of Congress would have the right to purchase lands, part of the public domain, but who has not complied with the requirements of the act, is not entitled, upon the mere showing of such right.to purchase, to demand that, its title be adjudged good and valid, and that another party who is in possession be adjudged to have no estate or interest in the land, or that such other person be enjoined from asserting any adverse claim, or that the claimant recover the possession of the land with the right of ousting the defendant from the improvements made thereon by its predecessors.</p>

This was a libel in rem for materials, and also for work and labor, alleged to have been furnished by the libellants King and Wi-nge in the repair of the steamship Boanoke, to certain contractors with the owners, who had full charge of the alteration and repair of the steamship. An intervening libel was also filed by one Fraser for labor and material furnished under the same conditions.

This is a petition for marshal’s fees for the District of Oklahoma, upon which the Court of Claims made the findings of fact set forth in the margin.1 36 C. Cl. 593 ; 36 C. Cl. 598.

Held: and general equity rule 94 requires, that such bill must contain an allegation under oath that the suit is not a collusive one to confer on a court of the United States jurisdiction, and must also contain an allegation that the directors of a corporation have refused to institute the proceedings themselves in the name of such corporation, and the efforts of the plaintiff to secure such action on the part of the…

This was an action by tbe defendant in error, a British corporation, in the Circuit Court for the District of New Hampshire, against the Nashua Savings Bank, a New Hampshire corporation, to recover an assessment made by such corporation in pursuance of its charter and by-laws, upon defendant’s subscription to a thousand shares of its stock.

This was a petition for the confirmation of a tract of land in the county of Santa Fé, New Mexico, known as the José de Leyba grant, which has never been oificially surveyed, but is estimated to contain about 18,000 acres.

Held: that although the construction of written instruments is one for tb£ court, where the case turns upon the proper conclusions to be drawn from a series of letters, particularly of a'Commercial character taken in connection with other facts and circumstances, it is one which is properly referred to a jury, and as this case really turned upon the actual ownership of the shares, such question of ownership was properly…

This was an action brought in the Superior Court of Middle-sex County by Harrington, collector of taxes for the' city of Lowell, to recover a tax upon pórsonal property, assessed upont the defendant as trustee, for the year 1889. ■ The case resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, which was carried by exceptions to the Supreme Judicial Court, where the exceptions were ordered overruled, 179 Massachusetts, 486, and the case remanded to the Superior Court, in which judgment…

Held: in time to meet the payment of that portion of the price falling due November 12, and relying upon his representations and requests defendants agreed to an extension of the time; but on May 8, 1893,. the whole scheme so far as Warner was connected with it, collapsed, by his executing a general assignment of his property for the benefit of his creditors.

Held: therefore, that there was error committed below in refusing to sustain a demurrer of a defendant railroad company to a bill filed by a District Attorney of the United States under the circumstances stated.

Held: therefore, that the court below erre’d in treating the cases in question as decisive of the question which they reserved.' The Land Department charged with the execution of the statute having in many rulings held that prior entry did not disqualify provided the one who had so entered had returned and taken part in the race with the others, unless the prior entry conferred some manifest advantage, which would not…

Held: not only on the ground of the right of the State to prescribe the conditions upon which an insurance company should transact business within its borders, but also because the rule in question was the lawful exercise of the power to classify.. In the Warren case a like principle was applied to a statute of the State of Ohio establishing a particular regulation as to life insurance companies.

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.</p> <p>This action was originally brought by the Onondaga Nation and Te-has-ha, an Onondaga Indian. Subsequently several other Onopdaga Indians, one Seneca Indian, a Cayuga Indian. and the University of the State of New York were made additional plaintiffs. The ultimate object of the action was to. recover from the defendant four wampum belts, to which defendant asserted ownership by purchase, but which were averred by the plaintiffs to be. the property of a league or confederacy of Indian tribes, known as the “ Ho-de-no-sau-nee.” The Onondaga Nation, through an officer selected by it,' was averred to be the lawful keeper or custodian of said belts. The. league or confederacy referred to was also at one time known as the Iroquois Confederacy, as the Five Nations (consisting of the Mohawk, Onondaga, Seneca, Oneida and Cayuga tribes) and, after the Tuscarora Nation of Indians came into the league, as the Six Nations. By an amendment to the com-' plaint it was alleged that on February 26, 1898, “the Onondaga Nation elected the University of the State of New York to the office of wampum keeper, and by bill of sale sold andtransferred to the University of the State of New York all its interest in the said wampums; ” and the right to the custody of the belts was alleged to be in said University. These wampum belts were thus described :</p> <p>“ One belt oi dark wampum beads representing the confederation organization of the Five Nations under Hiawatha; one belt representing the first treaty stipulation between the Six Nations and General George Washington, picturing in wampum beadwork the council house, General Washington, the O-do-ta-ho, or president of the tribes, and thirteen representatives of the colonies ; also' two fragments of other belts, one representing the first approach to the Indians of the. ‘people with white faces,’ and the other a narrow belt representing the unity of the Five Nations.”</p> <p>The complaint contained no allusion to the Constitution, treaties or statutes of the United States.</p> <p>In substance the answer contained a recital of the facts connected with the purchase of the belts, and it was asserted that absolute ownership thereof existed in the defendant.</p> <p>The action was tried at a special term of the Supreme Court of Onondaga County, New York. After the introduction of oral and documentary evidence, the court filed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The defendant was found to be the absolute owner of the property in question; the Onondaga Nation was held not to have legal capacity to sue; the University of the State of New York was decided not to have such interest in the subject matter of the action as entitled it to bring an action for the recovery of any or either of the wampum belts; and the individual Indians made parties plaintiff were adjudged not to possess such a community of interest with the members of the various tribes constituting the league or confederacy which it was alleged originally owned the belts, as to permit the maintenance by them of the action. Beyond statements made in testimony or in recitals of historical facts showing that the general government had made treaties with the confederacy of the Six N ations and with certain of the tribes which had composed the confederacy, and that said treaties had been evidenced by the exchange of belts of wampum, there was not contained in the evidence or in the findings referred to, or in the judgment rendered or in the exception's thereafter filed by the plaintiffs to the findings of the court, any allusion to the Constitution, treaties or statutes of the United States.</p> <p>On appeal the appellate division of the Supreme Court of New York for the fourth judicial department affirmed the judgment of the trial court. An- appeal was then taken to the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, and that court affirmed the judgment, 169 N..Y. 584, upon the following per cwriam opinion:</p> <p>“We think the judgment appealed from should be affirmed, upon the ground that neither the Onondaga Nation nor the individual Indians named as plaintiffs, had legal capacity to bring and maintain the action. Strong v. Waterman, 11 Paige, 607; Seneca Nation v. Christie, 126 N. Y. 122; Johnson v. Long Island R. R. Co., 162 N. Y. 462.</p> <p>“ As to the University of the State of New York, one of the plaintiffs^ the finding of fact by the trial judge, ‘ that the University of the State of New York never purchased any or either of the wampum belts mentioned and described in the complaint, and that said University of the State of New York never was selected or “ raised up ” to the position or office of “ wampum keeper,” and no official proceedings were ever begun on the part of any of the tribes of Indians which formerly composed said Iroquois Confederacy for the purpose of conferring any such position or office upon said University of the State of New York, assuming that there is or was, at the time of said alleged proceedings, any such official position,’ is supported by evidence, and the judgment having been affirmed at the appellate division, it is, therefore, conclusive upon us.”</p> <p>The record and the proceedings in. the cause having been remitted to the Supreme Court of Onondaga County, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals having been made the judgment of the lower court, a writ of error was allowed to review this latter judgment.</p>

Shurtleff v. United States, 189 U.S. 311 (1903), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning the President's removal power under the Appointments Clause.

• Plaintiff in error was convicted in the Superior Court of the county of El Dorado, California, of the crime of extortion. Judgment was entered, and, upon appeal .to the Supreme Court of California, it was there affirmed, 132 California, 37, and the plaintiff in error brings the case here for review.

This is an action to enjoin the payment of certain taxes levied upon property belonging to the appellees (plaintiffs below) and situated in an Indian reservation within the Territory of Oklahoma. The appellee, Hite, resides in the Ponca and Otoe Indian reservation within-that Territory; the Stafford Land and ..

This action was commenced in a proper court of the State of Wisconsin to enforce the shareholders’ liability under a Minnesota statute, in a corporation of Minnesota and doing business in that State. The defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground, among others, that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Held: that the original entries were valid and that tlie conveyances of the original entrymen passed a good title to their grantee for which he was entitled to'a patent from the United States.

The plaintiff in error brings tbis case here to review the judgment of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 111 Fed. Rep. 777, affirming the judgment in the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Texas, entered upon the verdict of a jury .in favor of defendant in error on the-trial of this action brought by him against the railway company to recover damages for personal injuries.

Held: that the New York against which judgments had bean entered for damages to the cargo on the Conemaugh could not in this action recoup or set off any part of such damages against, or shift any part of such judgment upon, the owners of the Conemaugh, even though it should result in the New York paying more than fifty per cent of the total loss. 2.

<p>Where the highest court of a State has decided that fhe act of the legislature under which bonds were issued by a county is unconstitutional and • such decision is in'conformity with the prior decisions of that court, the bonds, having been illegally issued, do not constitute a contract which is proteqted by the Constitution of the United States.</p>

This case involves the legality of an order of the commissioner of railroads of the State of Michigan requiring the plaintiff in error and the Union Terminal Association of Detroit, at their own cost and expense,'to maintain and operate safety gates and derailing and signalling appliances at Clark avenue in said city.

Held: That as to all the premises except the two rocks or islands, which were awarded to the United States, the grantee under the state patent had good title and could not be ejected. Held, That in the absence of explicit directions the President’s order could not be construed as appropriating such valuable property as that adjacent to the rocks and islands as being appurtenant thereto.

Held: that this applied to a building and loan association of Tennessee making a loan in Tennessee secured by certain shares of its own stock and also by mortgage on certain real estate in Alabama, and that although the association had complied with certain provisions of the law, the fact that it had not designated an agent as required by the constitution and statutes was a bar to the foreclosure of the mortgage in the…

<p>ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI.</p> <p>The casu’iá'-stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

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

<p>Where a negro moves to quash _an indictment on the ground that he is denied the equal protection of the laws and his civil rights under the Constitution and the laws of the United States by the exclusion of negroes from the grand jury, but the record does not show that he proved or offered to prove the truth of the allegations on which the motion was based, . this court cannot interfere with the judgment.</p>

<p>ERROR TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Held: that there was no contract on the part of the city to permit the *435 charge named therein; and that the charter having been accepted subject to the provision of the general act reserving the power in the municipal authorities to regulate the price of water, the subsequent ordinance wás not void either as impairing the obligation of a contract, or as depriving the company of its property without due process of law.

Held: under some circumstances, even in ordinary suits, that when events have corrected the prophecy of the public, the facts may be shown and a more correct valuation adopted. Twycross v. Grant, 2 C. P. D. 469, 544; Peek v. Derry, 37 Ch. D. 541, 591 (not reversed on this point by 14 App. Gas. 337); Whiting v. Price, 172 Massachusetts, 240. See National Bank of Commerce v. New Bedford, 175 Massachusetts, 257, 262.

<p>Under tbe act. of March 3, 1871, c. 122, 16 Stat. 573, the rights of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company were subordinate to those of the Texas Pacific Railroad Company. When the Texas Pacific grant was declared forfeited by the act of February 28, 1885, the forfeiture did not ' vest the Southern Pacific with the lands forfeited, but the forfeiture enured to the benefit of the United States.</p>

<p>This court having decided in The Paquete Habana, 175 U. S. 677, that certain fishing smacks engaged in coast fishing for the daily market were not liable to capture, and ordered that the proceeds of vessels and cargoes be restored to the claimants with compensatory and not punitive damages and costs, and it appearing that the damages allowed were excessive, the cases were remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.</p> <p>Under the circumstances of this case the decree should be entered against the United States and not against the captors individually.</p>

<p>Tn an action for personal injuries sustained by a brakeman by falling from a car, where the claim was based upon negligence in stopping the car suddenly with knowledge of his position and of the slippery condition of the roof of the car, and also upon the projection of a nail in the roof of the car which increased the danger and contributed to his fall, \eld, there was no error in the court declining to rule that the chance of such an accident was one of the risks assumed by the plaintiff, or that the question whether the defendant was liable depended on whether the freight train was handled in the usual and ordinary way. It was proper for the court to leave it to the jury to say whether the train was handled with due care.</p>

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

Giles v. Harris, 189 U.S. 475 (1903), was an early 20th-century United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a state constitution's requirements for voter registration and qualifications. Although the plaintiff accused the state of discriminating in practice against black citizens, the Court found that the requirements applied to all citizens and refused to review the results "in practice," which it considered overseeing the state's process. As there was no stated intent in law to disenfranchise blacks, the Court upheld the state law. The African-American educator Booker T. Washington secretly arranged for funding and representation for Jackson W. Giles in this lawsuit and the ensuing Giles v. Teasley (1904).

<p>Error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.</p>

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

<p>Appeal from the Court of Claims.</p>

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

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of West Virginia.</p>

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

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

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

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

<p>Error to the Court of Ap-, peals of the District of Columbia.</p>

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

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

<p>Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Fairfield County, Connecticut.</p>

<p>Error to and appeal from the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.</p>

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

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida,</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida.</p>

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

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California.</p>

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

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

<p>Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.</p>