79 U.S. 130 (_) 12 Wall. 130 MAIL COMPANY v. FLANDERS. Supreme Court of United States. *132 The case was submitted; Mr. Evarts declining to press the case for the appellant, as being a plain one against him. Mr. Hoar, for the United States, represented here by the appellees. Mr. Justice CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court. Authority was conferred upon the Secretary of the Treasury, by the act of the twelfth of March, 1863, to appoint special agents to receive and collect abandoned or...
76 U.S. 145 19 L. Ed. 771 19 L. Ed. 772 9 Wall. 145 LATHAM'S AND DEMING'S APPEALS. December Term, 1869 THESE were two appeals from the Court of Claims, in suits against the United States. They had been passed at former terms, and early at this one. It being alleged by Mr. Hoar, Attorney-General, that they involved a question of public interest to wit, the legal tender question—which he desired, for some reasons which he stated, to have passed on anew, he asked the court to fix a day at this...
77 U.S. 395 (1870) 10 Wall. 395 UNITED STATES v. HODSON. Supreme Court of United States. *398 Mr. Bristow, Solicitor-General, and Mr. C.H. Hill, Assistant Attorney-General, for the United States. Mr. M.H. Carpenter, contra. *401 *402 Mr. Justice SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court. This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Wisconsin. The action was debt *403 upon a penal bond in the sum of five thousand dollars. The condition was not set out and...
154 U.S. 578 14 S. Ct. 1166 19 L. Ed. 648 RILEY v. WELLES. No. 397. March 7, 1870. Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court. 1 This is an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Iowa. 2 This case is not distinguishable from that of Wolcott v. Des Moines Co., 5 Wall. 681 . 3 Welles, the plaintiff below, derives his title by deed from this company, the same as Wolcott in the former case. The suit in that case was brought to recover back the...
76 U.S. 758 (_) 9 Wall. 758 THE GUY. Supreme Court of United States. *759 After argument by Mr. Evarts, for the appellant, and Messrs. W.W. Goodrich and O. Horwitz, contra. The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the judgment of the court, to the effect, that upon the facts established it was apparent that the case was to be governed by the principles settled at this term in the case of The Grapeshot, [*] and that the decree of the Circuit Court having been in accordance with those principles, must be...
76 U.S. 608 19 L. Ed. 625 19 L. Ed. 627 9 Wall. 608 UNITED STATES v. AYRES. December Term, 1869 THIS case was an appeal from the Court of Claims, and the matter here reported presents the case of two motions, made at two different times, for the defendant in error to dismiss it; made the first time under one state of facts, and the second time under another and new state; and also a motion on the other side, under the new state of facts, for a special action by this court hereinafter stated....
76 U.S. 807 (_) 9 Wall. 807 RUBBER COMPANY v. GOODYEAR. Supreme Court of United States. Messrs. Payne, Cushing, and Parsons, for the appellant; and Mr. W.E. Curtis and Mr. Stoughton, contra. Mr. Justice SWAYNE stated the case and delivered the opinion of the court. After the interlocutory decree was entered in the case of Charles Goodyear, executor of Charles Goodyear, deceased, *808 and others, against The Providence Rubber Company and others, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the...
154 U.S. 574 14 S. Ct. 1210 19 L. Ed. 881 ISAAC UNDERHILL v. JOHN M. HERNDON. No. 197. April 30, 1870. Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court. 1 This is a writ of error to the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Illinois. 2 This is a suit in ejectment against Underhill, in the court below, to recover possession of the S. W. 1/4 of the N. E. 1/4, and the S. 1/2 of the N. W. 1/4, section 26, township 27 N., range 13 W. 3 The opinion in the case of Little...
76 U.S. 415 (_) 9 Wall. 415 THE SUPERVISORS v. DURANT. Supreme Court of United States. *416 Mr. Henry Strong, for the plaintiff in error. *417 Mr. Grant, contra. Mr. Justice STRONG delivered the opinion of the court. Since the decisions which have been made by this court during the last four years, there is almost nothing in the record now before us remaining open for adjudication. Indeed, it is not now contended that mandamus is not a proper remedy in cases like the present, when a relator has...
154 U.S. 570 14 S. Ct. 1215 19 L. Ed. 712 OTIS H. WEED et al. v. JOHN H. CRANE. No. 123. April 4, 1870. J. B. Robb, for plaintiffs in error. F. A. Brooks, for defendant in error. Mr. Chief Justice CHASE delivered the opinion of the court. 1 On looking into the record of this cause we find no exception to any ruling of the court upon the trial, nor any exception to the report of the assessor, nor to any ruling of the court in relation to it. There is nothing, therefore, in the record which can...
76 U.S. 339 (_) 9 Wall. 339 BIGELOW v. FORREST. Supreme Court of United States. *344 Messrs. Poland and Willoughby, for Bigelow, the plaintiff in error. Mr. Conway Robinson, contra. *347 Mr. Justice STRONG delivered the opinion of the court. The first question presented by the record for our consideration is whether there was error in the refusal of the State Circuit Court to allow a removal of the cause into the Circuit Court of the United States; for if there was not, there is no ground for...
154 U.S. 569 14 S. Ct. 1201 19 L. Ed. 680 BENJAMIN F. FLANDERS v. JOHN P. TWEED. No. 108. March 21, 1870. Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court. 1 This is a writ of error to the circuit court of the United States for the district of Louisiana. 2 The suit was brought by Tweed in the court below against Flanders to recovers 123 bales of cotton. 3 The answer of the defendant states that he was a deputy general agent of the treasury department of the United States; denies that the...
76 U.S. 611 (_) 9 Wall. 611 WORTHY v. THE COMMISSIONERS. Supreme Court of United States. *612 Mr. Boyce now moved to dismiss the writ for want of jurisdiction, on the ground that the plaintiff in error. Mr. Scheffer, contra. *613 The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court. It is manifest that this court has no jurisdiction of the present cause. There was no decision by the Supreme Court of North Carolina against the validity of any treaty or act of Congress, or authority exercised...
76 U.S. 737 19 L. Ed. 784 9 Wall. 737 WISE v. ALLIS. December Term, 1869 ON certificate of division of opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court for the District of Wisconsin. The Patent Act of July 4th, 1836, referring to suits for the infringement of patents, enacts by its 15th section that 'whenever the defendant relies in his defence on the fact of a previous invention, knowledge, or use of the thing patented, he shall state in his notice of special matter the names and places of...
75 U.S. 557 (_) 8 Wall. 557 WILLARD v. TAYLOE. Supreme Court of United States. *562 Messrs. Curtis, Poland, and Howe, for the appellant. Messrs. Cox and McPherson, contra, and in support of the decree below, argued &mdash. *564 Mr. Justice FIELD, after stating the facts of the case, delivered the opinion of the court, as follows: The covenant in the lease giving the right or option to purchase the premises was in the nature of a continuing offer to sell. It was a proposition extending through...
81 U.S. 676 20 L. Ed. 719 14 Wall. 676 WILLARD v. PRESBURY. December Term, 1871 APPEAL from a decree of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia; the case being this: An act of Congress, passed February 23d, 1865, provides: 'That the corporation of the city of Washington shall have full power and authority to levy taxes on particular wards, parts, or sections of the city for their particular local improvements, and to cause the curbstones to be set, the foot and carriage-ways (or so much...
76 U.S. 740 (_) 9 Wall. 740 WILKINS v. ELLETT, ADMINISTRATOR. Supreme Court of United States. *741 Mr. D.K. McRae, in support of the judgment below. Messrs. Humes and Poston, contra. Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court. It has long been settled, and is a principle of universal jurisprudence, in all civilized nations, that the personal *742 estate of the deceased is to be regarded, for the purposes of succession and distribution, wherever situated, as having no other locality...
77 U.S. 129 (1869) 10 Wall. 129 WIGGINS ET AL v. BURKHAM. Supreme Court of United States. Mr. T.A. Hendricks, for the plaintiff in error; Messrs. McDonald, Roache, and McDonald, contra. Mr. Justice SWAYNE stated the case, and delivered the opinion of the court. This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana. The action is assumpsit. The declaration contained only the common counts. The case, as shown by the bill of exceptions, is as follows:...
76 U.S. 759 (_) 9 Wall. 759 WATKINS v. UNITED STATES. Supreme Court of United States. *760 Mr. W.M. Addison, for the plaintiff in error; Mr. W.A. Field, Assistant Attorney-General, contra. Mr. Justice CLIFFORD stated the case and delivered the opinion of the court. Persons accountable for public money, if they neglect or refuse to pay the sum or balance reported to be due to the United States, upon the adjustment of their accounts, are liable for the amount; and it is made the duty of the...
77 U.S. 299 (1869) 10 Wall. 299 WASHINGTON RAILROAD v. BRADLEYS. Supreme Court of United States. *300 Mr. Justice SWAYNE, who thus gave them and delivered the opinion of the court: The appellants are the complainants in the case. The original bill made the corporation of Washington and Joseph H. Bradley and A. Thomas Bradley only, defendants. The prayer of the bill was that the defendants, Joseph H. and A.T. Bradley, should be enjoined from selling, under a deed made to them as trustees for the...
