Volume 67 — United States Reports

Held: That this was not a grant for two leagues of land nor intended to be so. 4, The legal effect of the dispatch of the Minister of Relations ' was merely to authorize a regular application to the Governor by petition under the laws of 1824 and 1828 to be followed by such steps as those laws require, and a grant of land' if the Governor should ascertain that it was proper to make one. 5 To say that these proceedings at…

Held: That the principal’s right in the vessel was gone, unless he could prove that the vendee had notice of his right before payment of the purchase money. 2.

Held: not onlj insufficient and unsatisfactory, but inadmissible. The testimony of Moreno will not help them, because he is nót a credible man, and because he has told an incredible story and for the still further reason, that his statement, if believed, is in conflict with the whole theory of their case.

This case came up on a writ of error .to the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York. It was an ejectment for certain lots now within the limits of the city, and formerly part of the estate of Lawrence Benson, deceased. Lawrence Benson, at the time of his death, had two tracts of land, which he held in fee, one occupied'by himself and one by George Williams. He had one son and two grand-daughters, the children of a deceased daughter.

Held: as we do, that if the " nuisance necessarily occurs in the ordinary mode of doing the work, the occupant or owner is liable; but if it is from the negligence of the contractor or his servants, then he should alone be responsible.” But the Court also held that {'the omission to cover the opening in the area did not necessarily occur as an incident to the prosecution of the work,” a rule to which we cannot assent, and…

Held: "1. That the lien of judgments in the Courts of the United States does not result from any direct legislation of Congress on that subject. 2.

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

The appellee, Margaret Lyons, administratrix of Elizabeth Braiden, deceased, on February 12th, 1857, filed her bill in the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia for the sale of part of square No. -226, in the City of Washington, to enforce the payment of the purchase money due therefor, against Agnes R. Hazard, a married woman, — who had purchased on the credit of her separate estate.

Held: That such a protest utterly fails to meet the requirements of the Act of 1845. 6. The importer must indicate by his protest, the distinct and definite ground of his objection to the charge, and show his intention to reclaim the excess. 7.

This was a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. It was like the case of Curtis vs. Fiedler, {supra), an action of assumpsit against a col ■lector of customs for exacting excessive duties on an importation of hemp from Russia.

' On the 7th of May, 1858, James Ward filed his bill in the District Court, praying. 'for an abatement of the Rock Island Bridge over the Mississippi river, averring it to be a public nuisance, specially injurious to him as an owner and navigator of steamboats to and from St. Louis, Missouri, to St. Paul, Min nesota.

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

<p>1 Where a State Legislature authorizes a City to borrow money, issue bonds and tax all the property in the city to pay- it, this is not a contract with the bondholders, that the' State shall not afterwards exercise her power to modify the taxation, or exempt portions of the property from taxation.</p> <p>2. The fact that a State by an Act of her Legislature, has stripped herself of any portion of her sovereignty, is not to be assumed , unless the language used is too clear to admit of doubt.</p> <p>3. If such a contract existed and if a subsequent law exempted some portion of the property, it does not lie in the mouth of a property-holder in the City to complain of it on the score of bad faith to the bondholders, if the bondholders themselves are silent.</p> <p>4. A law authorizing a public corporation to contract a debt, and pay it by means of a tax, is not liable to the objection, that it takes private property for public purposes without compensation ; for that clause of the Constitution is a limitation, not on the taxing power, but on the right of eminent domain.</p> <p>B. The levying of taxes by a public corporation under the authority of State law, is the exercise of the taxing power, as much as the taxation of the citizens directly, for the support of the State Government.</p> <p>6. The Constitution of Wisconsin, requires the’rule of taxation to be uniform; and this means, that all kinds of property not absolutely exempt, must be taxed alike, by the same standard of valuation, equally with other taxable property, and co-extensively with the Territory to which it applies.</p> <p>I. A tax for a special purpose upon the City of Sheboygan and levied exclusively upon real property, was a discrimination in favor personal property, in conflict with the Constitution or the State, and therefore void.</p>

Frederick Griffing filed his bill in the District Court against Daniel Gibb and Donald Fraser, averring that he was the owner of two ^lots in San Francisco which originally fronted on the natural shore of the baj with bold deep water in front; that he bought this property with a view to its water front; that he built ware houses and a wharf on it to which ships of the largest size could come; that when he commenced his improvements there was no sign of any streets near him…

This case was brought here by appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Wisconsin. It was a b'll in equity brought by Greene C. Bronson and James A. Soutter trustee, &c., against the La Crosse and Milwaukie Railroad Company, and divers other defendants, creditors of that corporation. The Circuit Court made a decree in favor of the plaintiffs for one-Jialfthe amount of their claim, $565,260.05. From this decree the plaintiffs appealed.

<p>1. An assignment by an indebted party for the benefit of creditors in trust that the assignee shall sell the property, “ on such terms and conditions, as .in his judgment may appear best and most for the interest of the parties concerned,” has been held by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin to be fraudulent and void.</p> <p>2. In cases involving the construction of a State statute, this Court-is bound to follow the judgment of the highest judicial authority of the State.</p> <p>3. If a debtor makes an assignment, which is void, and. afterwards —but before an}*- creditor has acquired a lien — makes another which is free from objection, the latter assignment is valid.</p>

On the 31st of May, 1859, Matthias B. Wright and John Conner brought trespass on the case in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio, against Moses Bales, alleging in their declaration an infringement by defendant of a certain patent right to make and vend a draining plow of their invention. The defendant pleaded not guilty. Verdict for defendant, with costs.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States, for the District of Indiana.</p>

The record brought up by this appeal showed that in 1862 a causci was pending in the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia designated as Staiham et al. vs. Callan et al. In that cause the Court made certain decrees and decretal orders in pursuance of which a sale was made by trustees of some real property in'the City of Washington.

<p>A question repeatedly argued and decided must be considered as no longer open for discussion, whatever differences of opinion may once have existed on the subject in this Court.</p>

<p>1. Where a party brings a bill in equity complaining of an injury for which he has a plain, complete and adequate remedy at law, the bill must be dismissed.</p> <p>2. In the Courts of the United States, such an objection goes to the jurisdiction of the forum, and may, therefore, be enforced by the Judges sua sponte, though not raised by the pleadings or suggested-by the counsel.</p> <p>3. A decree affirmed dismissing a bill for a private nuisance in which the nature of the injury was not set out in such a manner as to show that the plaintiff was without a legal remedy.</p> <p>4. Courts of Equity have concurrent jurisdiction with Courts of Law in cases of private nuisance, but to this jurisdiction of the former Courts there are some limitations ; for many cases will sustain an action at law, which will not justify relief in equity.</p> <p>5. In what cases a Court of Equity will enjoin a nuisance and in what cases not</p>

<p>I This Court will enquire into the facts of a disputed entry of public land, and set aside or correct the decision of a Register or Receiver, or of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, as equity may require.</p> <p>2. Where a party takes up and resides upon a tract of land, within a quarter section, whose limits have been fixed by an authorized Government Survey,'pays for it and receives his patent certificate from the proper officers, and by a subsequent survey it is found that the house 'of the pre-emptor is not within the tract for which he has paid, the Commissioner of the Land Office cannot, for this reason, set aside the sale.</p> <p>3. In such a case the Government is bound by the original survey.</p> <p>4. Where the house of a pre-emptor is built on the line dividing two quarter sections, his residence in it avails as the foundation of a pre-emption right in either.</p>

Held: and now holds, that the latter, independently of any question of adverse possession, must prevail. Bryan vs. Forsyth, 19 How., 334 ; Mehan et al. vs. Forsyth, 24 How., 175 ; Gregg vs. Tesson, 1 Black., 150 *569 4.

<p>1. If an exception be seasonably taken, and reserved, it may be drawn out and sealed by the Judge afterwards, and the time within which it may be so drawn out and presented to the . Court, must depend on the rules and practice of the Court and the judicial discretion of the presiding Justice.</p> <p>2. The doctrine held by this Court in Briján vs. Forsyth, (19 How., 338,) Mahan vs. Forsyth, (24 How., 175,) and Gregg vs. Tesson, (1 Black, /so,) concerning the effect of the saving clause in patents for claims in Peoria, re-affirmed.</p>

•The defendants in error in this cause were the Common School Commissioners of the Eighth Civil District of Polk County, Tennessee, who in that character filed their bill on the 13th of February, 1856, in the Chancery Court at Benton, to impeach and set aside a lease for ninety-nine yeárs, made by their predecessors, of the Common School Section of land in-that district, and a sale made of the same land under ah order of the Circuit Court of that County.

■ Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Wisconsin. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the Court. It was argued by

’ On the 23d of November, 1855, the libel in this cause was filed in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, by Baker, a ship-wright and carpenter in rem. against the ship Potomac, to recover a bill of repairs The Potomac was a.ship of more than five hundred tons, and was engaged in tbe general freighting business. She had just returned from a foreign voyage and was about to sail for .Australia.

Held: That-the mortgagor Cannot sustain a bill in equity to restrain the mortgagee from selling the land, and to enforce the understanding made before the sale. £. Neither party can enforce against the other a contract made between themselves to injure a third person, in fraud of the law. 3.

<p>1. Municipal Corporations upon which the duty is imposed to -construct and repair, or to keep in repair streets and bridges, and upon which is also conferred the means of accomplishing such duty, are liable for any. special damage arising from their neglect to perform it.</p> <p>2. In an action for damages sustained. by such neglect, evidence showing the business in which the plaintiff was engaged, its extent and the consequent loss arising to him from his inability to prosecute it, is relevant and pertinent, as enabling the jury to fix, with some certainty, the direct and necessary damages resulting from his injuries.</p>

Held: That this Court cannot confirm such a clamu These were cross appeals taken from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California Mr. Wills, of Washington City, for the United States. Mr. Hepburn, and Mr. Wilkins, of California, contra. Mr. Justice MILLER. These are appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California.

Held: “ A tax deed informal and defective *604 in substance is admissible to show color of title in the defendant to bring him within the statutes of limitation.” “ Suits for the recovery of lands sold for taxes, except in cases where the taxes have been paid, or the lands redeemed according to law, must be commenced within three years from the time of recording the tax deed of sale, or no recovery can be had.”…

<p>Error to the Circuit - Court of the United States for the Southern'District of Ohio.</p>

On the first of March, 1858, Hiram Grimes filed his petition in the California Land Commission, on his own behalf, and as executor of Eliab Grimes, deceased, praying confirmation of a title to certain lands, derived from Mexico through and under John A. Sutter. On the 15th of January, 1856, the Land Commissioners rejected the claim, whereupon Grimes appealed to the District Court.

<p>1. Where the surviving partner of an insolvent firm assigned certain lots of ground belonging to the firm for the benefit of its creditors, the heirs of the deceased partner cannot be made parties to a suit involving the title to the lots, on the ground of any relation of trust or confidence subsisting between them and the assignee.</p> <p>2. Where a .party purchases property under the direction of, or on behalf of another, the purchase must be held to be in tl'ust for the benefit of the principal, on repayment of the money advanced by the agent.</p> <p>3. Where two devisees or tenants in common hold under an imperfect title, and one of them buys in the outstanding title, such purchase will enure to their common benefit upon contribution made to repay the purchase-money.</p> <p>4. This rule is based upon a community of interest in a common title, creating such a relation of trust and confidence between the parties, that it would be inequitable to permit one of them to do any thing to the prejudice of the other, in reference to the property so situated.</p> <p>■ ó The reason of this rule applies as forcibly to the husband of a tenant in common as to one of the immediate co-partners.</p>

The Bank of Commerce, a corporation in tbe City of New York, rendered its statement, according to law, to the Tax Commissioners, on which the latter were to fix the sum or valuation of property on which the taxation of the Bank was to be made. By this it appeared that their whole capital was nine millions one hundred and forty-eight thousand four hundred and eighty dollars, ($9,148,480.00).

The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635 (1863), were a group of four United States Supreme Court cases that upheld President Abraham Lincoln's authority to blockade Southern ports during the American Civil War. The opinion in the case was written by Supreme Court Justice Robert Cooper Grier.

This was an appeal from the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia.

The appellant, De Krafft, by two petitions filed in the Orphans’ . Court of the District of Columbia, on the 2d of October, 1860, and the 7th of.

<p>1. An instrument purporting to be a mortgage, made by a corpora ■ tion, is not a legal mortgage, and a bill to foreclose it as such cannot be sustained unlesss it be sealed with the corporate seal of the mortgagor.</p> <p>2 The mere fact that such a mortgage-deed has the corporate seal attached to it, does not make it the act of the corporation if the seal was not affixed by a person duly authorized.</p> <p>3. The presumption is, that the seál was rightfully affixed to a deed, or other instrument, on which it appears; but that presumption is not conclusive, and may be repelled by parol evidence.</p> <p>4 Where it is proved that the officers who executed a mortgage did not seal it then nor afterwards; that the officer who had the seal in his custody never affixed it nor authorized another to do so, and that the mortgage was recorded without a seal, the burden is thrown on the mortgagee to prove that it was properly sealed, and if he fails the conclusion of law is, that the seal was wrongfully and fraudulently affixed.</p> <p>5. A mortgagee whose bill seeks a foreclosure, on the sole ground • that the mortgage is a legal one, cannot be decreed an equitable mortgagee, unless he files a new bill in which his equitable rights are set forth.</p> <p>6. The officers and directors pf a corporate body are trustees of the stockholders, and in securing to themselves an advantage not common to all the stockholders, they, commit a plain breach of duty.</p>

This was a California land case, in which an appeal had been taken by the claimant and one Clark, an intervenor. The appellants suffered a term to pass without filing a copy of the record in this Court, but at the second term brought up the transcript and had it docketed.

Held: the committee stated that they were required to ask from the counties additional subscriptions to the stock of the Railroad Company. From the Counties of Hamilton and Miami respectively, twenty thousand dollars, and from Howard County ten thousand dollars.