72 U.S. 337 18 L. Ed. 681 5 Wall. 337 TOWNSEND v. BURBANK. December Term, 1866 Another case— Townsend v. Burbank —Substantially the same in question and principle with the one preceding and like it from the Supreme Court of California, was decided in the same way with it: the CHIEF JUSTICE delivering the judgment of this court 1 AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENT BELOW.
71 U.S. 519 (_) 4 Wall. 519 PURCELL v. MINER. Supreme Court of United States. *520 Messrs. Brent and Merrick, for the petitioner. Mr. Justice GRIER delivered the opinion of the court. We have just decided this case and affirmed the judgment below, because by the complainant's own statement in his bill he has shown no sufficient grounds for a court of equity to grant him the relief sought. We will not repeat the points there decided. The case was too plain to leave any possible doubt respecting...
72 U.S. 87 (_) 5 Wall. 87 WOODWORTH v. INSURANCE COMPANY. Supreme Court of United States. *88 Mr. Hibbard, for the appellant. Mr. Rae, contra. *89 Mr. Justice MILLER delivered the opinion of the court. The litigation to establish the liability of the Ross was troublesome and expensive to the Corn Exchange Company. Mr. Woodworth did not, in any manner, aid, or offer to aid in it. His interest was against the liability which the company sought to establish; for, if the Ross was declared not...
73 U.S. 80 (_) 6 Wall. 80 WOOD v. STEELE. Supreme Court of United States. Mr. Justice SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court. The action was brought by the plaintiff in error upon a promissory note, made by Steele and Newson, bearing date October 11th, 1858, for $3720, payable to their own order *81 one year from date, with interest at the rate of two per cent. per month, and indorsed by them to Wood, the plaintiff. Upon the trial it appeared that Newson applied to Allis, the agent of Wood,...
72 U.S. 681 (_) 5 Wall. 681 WOLCOTT v. DES MOINES COMPANY. Supreme Court of United States. *683 Mr. Gilbert, for the plaintiff in error; Messrs. Litchfield and Tracy, for the defendant in error; Messrs. Trumbull, Cook, and Smith, for parties allowed to intervene. Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court. The defendants conveyed by deed-poll to the plaintiff, on the 1st August, 1859, the east half of section 17, township 88, range 27, situate in Webster County, State of Iowa,...
71 U.S. 210 (_) 4 Wall. 210 WITHERSPOON v. DUNCAN. Supreme Court of United States. *212 Mr. Carlisle, with a brief of Mr. Watkins, for the plaintiff in error. *216 Mr. Reverdy Johnson, contra. *217 Mr. Justice DAVIS, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court. It is not the province of this court to interfere with the policy of the revenue laws of the States, nor with the interpretation given to them by their courts. Arkansas has the right to determine the manner of levying and...
72 U.S. 819 18 L. Ed. 613 5 Wall. 819 WITHENBURY v. UNITED STATES. December Term, 1866 APPEAL from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois. Several libels were filed in that court for the condemnation, as prize of war, of large quantities of cotton and other property captured on the interior navigable waters of the United States, or on land adjacent thereto. On motion, these libels were consolidated, and various claims were interposed in the consolidated...
73 U.S. 83 (_) 6 Wall. 83 WILSON v. WALL. Supreme Court of United States. *87 Argued by Mr. P. Phillips for the appellants, in opposition to the view enforced by the State court of Alabama in its opinion as above presented. No opposite counsel appeared. Mr. Justice GRIER delivered the opinion of the court. When the United States acquired and took possession of the Floridas under the Louisiana treaty, the treaties which had been made with the Indian tribes remained in force over all the ceded...
73 U.S. 94 (_) 6 Wall. 94 WICKER v. HOPPOCK. Supreme Court of United States. *95 Mr. C.H. Reed, for the plaintiff in error. Mr. S.W. Fuller, contra. *97 Mr. Justice SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court. It is said that the agreement between the parties "was invalid because calculated to interfere with, and prevent the fairness and freedom of a judicial sale; and prevent competition, and therefore against public policy." The contract was, that the defendant in error should procure judgments...
72 U.S. 74 (_) 5 Wall. 74 WATSON v. SUTHERLAND. Supreme Court of United States. *76 Messrs. Mason Campbell and McLaughlin, for the defendants. Messrs. Wallis and Alexander, contra. *78 Mr. Justice DAVIS delivered the opinion of the court. There are, in this record, two questions for consideration. Was Sutherland entitled to invoke the interposition of a court of equity; and if so, did the evidence warrant the court below in perpetuating the injunction It is contended that the injunction should...
71 U.S. 617 (_) 4 Wall. 617 WARE v. UNITED STATES. Supreme Court of United States. *621 Mr. G.M. Wharton, by brief, for the plaintiff in error, Ware. Mr. Ashton, Assistant Attorney-General, contra. *625 Mr. Justice CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court. Deputy postmasters, where the commissions allowed to the office amount to or exceed one thousand dollars, are appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and hold their offices for the term of four years,...
71 U.S. 535 (_) 4 Wall. 535 VON HOFFMAN v. CITY OF QUINCY. Supreme Court of United States. *538 Messrs. McKinnon and Merrick, for the relator, plaintiff in error. Messrs. Cushing and Ewing, Jr., contra, for the City of Quincy, defendant in error. *548 Mr. Justice SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court, and after stating the case, proceeded thus: The demurrer admits what is set forth in the answer. On the other hand, the answer, according to the law of pleading, admits what is alleged in the...
72 U.S. 62 (_) 5 Wall. 62 UNITED STATES v. WEED ET AL. Supreme Court of United States. *65 Mr. Ashton, Assistant Attorney-General, for the United States, appellants. Mr. Coffey, contra, for the claimant. *66 Mr. Justice MILLER delivered the opinion of the court. If this case is to be disposed of here, upon the answer to be given to the question of prize or no prize, there can be no doubt that the decree of the District Court must be affirmed. There can on the facts be no pretence that there was...
72 U.S. 211 (_) 5 Wall. 211 UNITED STATES v. REPENTIGNY. Supreme Court of United States. *232 Mr. J.M. Howard, for the appellees, representatives of De Bonne and Repentigny. Mr. Stanbery, Attorney-General, and Mr. Alfred Russel, District Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, contra. *256 *257 Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court. The bill in this case was filed in the court below to recover possession of a large tract of land of six leagues square, fronting on the...
71 U.S. 408 (_) 4 Wall. 408 UNITED STATES v. QUIMBY. Supreme Court of United States. *409 Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court. The case falls within the construction of the treaty in the case of the United States v. Hathaway. The article, we think, is chargeable with a duty of twenty per centum ad valorem, under the twenty-fourth section of the act of March 2d, 1861, which imposes this duty "on all articles manufactured, in whole or in part," not otherwise provided for. The...
72 U.S. 536 (_) 5 Wall. 536 UNITED STATES v. PICO. Supreme Court of United States. *538 Mr. Stanbery, A.G., and Mr. Wills, for the appellants, and Mr. Coffey, contra. Mr. Justice FIELD delivered the opinion of the court. By the decree of the District Court, which is the subject of appeal in this case, the respondents obtained a confirmation of their claim to two tracts of land, containing together an area of twenty square leagues. One of the tracts is designated as the Rancho of San Margarita...
72 U.S. 647 (_) 5 Wall. 647 UNITED STATES v. MACDONALD. Supreme Court of United States. *649 Mr. Stanbery, A.G., and Mr. Ashton, Assistant A.G., for the United States, plaintiff in error; Mr. W.P. Fessendin for the collector, contra. Mr. Justice CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court. Principal question presented for decision in this case is, whether a collector of the customs is entitled to retain as compensation a sum not exceeding two thousand dollars per annum from his receipts as...
71 U.S. 158 18 L. Ed. 354 4 Wall. 158 UNITED STATES v. HOFFMAN. December Term, 1866 ON a motion for prohibition. At the last term of this court the relator made application for a writ of prohibition to the judge of the District Court of the Northern District of California, to prevent that court from proceeding further in a certain cause in admiralty. This court, without looking into the question of the alleged want of jurisdiction, granted a rule on the judge of that court to show cause why the...
71 U.S. 404 18 L. Ed. 395 4 Wall. 404 UNITED STATES v. HATHAWAY. December Term, 1866 THIS was a certificate of division of opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan. The suit was brought to recover a duty of ten per centum ad valorem , under the tariff act of 14th July, 1862, on staves for pipes, hogsheads, and other casks , imported by the defendants in November, 1863, from Canada into the United States. These articles were exempt...
73 U.S. 518 (_) 6 Wall. 518 UNITED STATES, EX REL., v. COUNCIL OF KEOKUK. Supreme Court of United States. Mr. Justice CLIFFORD stated the case and delivered the opinion of the court. Amended information of the relator states that the corporation defendants, in pursuance of the authority of an act of the General Assembly of the State, issued one hundred corporate bonds, each for the sum of one thousand dollars, redeemable in twenty years from date, with eight per cent. interest, payable semi-...
