97 U.S. 398 (_) KIHLBERG v. UNITED STATES. Supreme Court of United States. *400 Mr. Harvey Spalding for the appellant. The Solicitor-General, contra. *401 MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court. The contract which is the foundation of this action provides that transportation shall be paid "in all cases according to the distance from the place of departure to that of delivery." But no specific rule is prescribed for the ascertainment of distances. The contract is silent as to...
154 U.S. 645 14 S. Ct. 1187 24 L. Ed. 1103 DOLD v. UNITED STATES. No. 955. December 23, 1878. Mr. Chief Justice WAITE delivered the opinion of the court. 1 The facts found below present the following case: 2 In October, 1864, the chief commissary of subsistence for the military department of New Mexico advertised that he would receive proposals at his office in Santa Fe, until January 2, 1865, for the delivery of 1,000,000 pounds of corn at Ft. Sumner in three installments, to wit, 500,000...
96 U.S. 499 (1877) RAILROAD COMPANY v. MAINE. Supreme Court of United States. *503 Mr. Josiah H. Drummond for the plaintiff in error. *506 Mr. Lucius A. Emery, Attorney-General of Maine, contra. *507 MR. JUSTICE FIELD, after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the court. The principal question for our determination is whether the conditional and limited taxation, to which the two original companies first consolidated were subjected, is extended to the present corporation defendant after...
96 U.S. 199 (1877) GOLD-WASHING AND WATER COMPANY v. KEYES. Supreme Court of United States. *200 Mr. S.M. Wilson for the plaintiffs in error. Mr. Montgomery Blair, contra. *201 MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court. It is well settled that in the courts of the United States the special facts necessary for jurisdiction must in some form appear in the record of every suit, and that the right of removal from the State courts to the United States courts is statutory. A suit...
97 U.S. 293 (_) MEMPHIS v. UNITED STATES. Supreme Court of United States. *294 Mr. W.Y.C. Humes and Mr. S.P. Walker for the plaintiff in error. Mr. William M. Randolph, contra. MR. JUSTICE STRONG delivered the opinion of the court. The important question in this case is, whether the law of the State empowered the city of Memphis to levy the tax which by the writ of mandamus it was commanded to levy. If it did not, the award of the writ cannot be sustained, for a mandamus will not be granted to...
97 U.S. 381 (_) BURGESS v. SALMON. Supreme Court of United States. Mr. Assistant-Attorney-General Smith for the plaintiff in error. Mr. W.P. Burwell, contra. MR. JUSTICE HUNT delivered the opinion of the court. The facts of this case, as agreed upon, were these: That Burgess was collector of internal revenue for the third collection district of Virginia, and in that capacity exacted from and received of Salmon & Hancock, and paid into the treasury of the United States, the sum of $377.80, as an...
154 U.S. 638 14 S. Ct. 1203 24 L. Ed. 757 INDIANAPOLIS & ST. L. R. CO. v. JAMES L. VANCE et al. No. 897. April 1, 1878. B. W. Hanna, for appellant. James K. Edsall, for appellees. Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court. 1 The decision just rendered in case No. 896 ( 96 U.S. 450 ), between the same parties, controls the decision in this case. 2 Decree affirmed.
96 U.S. 450 (1877) RAILROAD COMPANY v. VANCE. Supreme Court of United States. Mr. Joseph E. McDonald and Mr. R.P. Ranney for the appellant. Mr. James K. Edsall, Attorney-General of Illinois, contra. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court. Upon the filing of the bill in this case by the Indianapolis and St. Louis Railroad Company, suing as a corporation organized under the laws of Indiana, against sundry county tax-collectors in the State of Illinois, a temporary injunction was...
96 U.S. 659 (1877) KETCHUM v. DUNCAN. HAYS v. KETCHUM. Supreme Court of United States. The first case was argued by Mr. George Hoadly and Mr. E.L. Andrews for the appellants, and by Mr. John A. Campbell and Mr. F.N. Bangs for the appellees. The second case was argued by Mr. John A. Campbell and Mr. F.N. Bangs for the appellants, and by Mr. George Hoadly and Mr. E.L. Andrews for the appellees. MR. JUSTICE STRONG delivered the opinion of the court. The principal question attempted to be raised by...
154 U.S. 637 14 S. Ct. 1185 24 L. Ed. 757 UNITED STATES v. ATCHISON, T. & S. F. R. CO. No. 875. Argued February 20, 1878 Decided April 8, 1878. Mr. Justice FIELD delivered the opinion of the court. 1 The question originally involved in this case, and decided at the October term of 1876, was whether the provision contained in the land grant to the company that its road should be a public highway, for the use of the government of the United States, free from all toll or other charge for the...
97 U.S. 233 (_) UNITED STATES v. McKEE. McKEE v. UNITED STATES. Supreme Court of United States. Mr. Assistant-Attorney-General Smith, for the United States. Mr. S.W. Johnston, contra. MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court. McKee had two separate written contracts with the quartermaster's department for the delivery of hay during the summer of 1864. The delivery in the one contract to be at Fort Gibson, of a part of the hay, and of another part at, or within seven miles of, that...
98 U.S. 218 25 L. Ed. 103 ELCOX v. HILL. October Term, 1878 ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. This is an action of trespass on the case by Elcox and Larter against Hill, proprietor of a public hotel in the city of Chicago, to recover the value of a quantity of jewelry lost by them while Larter was a guest at the hotel. The plaintiffs were manufacturing jewellers, doing business at Newark, N. J. Larter left home for a tour through several...
96 U.S. 153 (1877) KOHLSAAT v. MURPHY. Supreme Court of United States. Mr. Freeman J. Fithian for the plaintiffs in error. The Solicitor-General, contra. *154 MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court. Repeal by implication of revenue and collection laws, except when the prior laws have been subjected to a general statutory revision, are not favored in legal decision, unless it appear that the prior provision has been re-enacted in the new regulation, or that the later act is...
98 U.S. 203 (_) SNYDER v. SICKLES. Supreme Court of United States. Mr. Montgomery Blair and Mr. Britton A. Hill for the plaintiffs in error. Mr. Philip Phillips, contra. MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court. Titles to lands claimed by individuals in Louisiana at the time the province was ceded to the United States were in most cases incomplete, as the governor of the province never possessed the power to grant a patent. All he could do was to issue to the donee an instrument...
97 U.S. 628 (_) DAVIE v. BRIGGS. Supreme Court of United States. *633 The cause was argued by Mr. James Lowndes and Mr. Edward McCrady, Jr., for the appellants, and by Mr. Samuel F. Phillips for the appellees. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court. The appellants, as the heirs-at-law of Allen Jones Davie, deceased, assert an interest in the proceeds of a sale which took place in June, 1853, of a tract of land in Guilford County, North Carolina, known...
98 U.S. 75 (_) GARRATT v. SEIBERT. Supreme Court of United States. Mr. M.A. Wheaton for the appellant. Mr. A.H. Evans, contra. MR. JUSTICE STRONG delivered the opinion of the court. This bill is founded upon the act of Congress of July 8, 1870 *76 (16 Stat. 207, c. 230, sect. 58), re-enacted in the Revised Statutes, sect. 4918. That section enacted, "That whenever there shall be interfering patents, any person interested in any one of such interfering patents, or in the working of the invention...
97 U.S. 687 (_) MATTINGLY v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Supreme Court of United States. Mr. Richard T. Merrick and Mr. T.A. Lambert for the appellant. Mr. A.G. Riddle, contra. MR. JUSTICE STRONG delivered the opinion of the court. The facts of this case appear in the bill, the answer, and the *688 accompanying exhibits. So far as it is necessary to restate them now, they are as follows: In the year 1871, the board of public works of the District of Columbia, a board constituted under and by virtue...
95 U.S. 661 24 L. Ed. 536 UNITED STATES v. WILCOX. October Term, 1877 APPEAL from the Court of Claims. This was an action by Wilcox to recover from the United Stat § certain commissions which he claimed were due to him as a collector of internal revenue upon taxes collected by him for articles removed in bond from his district to another. The Court of Claims found the following facts:—— 1. Under the provisions of the act of July 20, 1868, c. 186, sect. 73, 15 Stat. 157, the Commissioner of...
95 U.S. 760 (_) UNITED STATES v. MOORE. Supreme Court of United States. *761 Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Smith for the United States. Mr. John B. Sanborn and Mr. Charles King, contra. Mr. JUSTICE SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court. On the 12th of April, 1869, the appellee was appointed an assistant-surgeon in the navy of the United States. On the 24th of February, 1874, he was examined for promotion to the grade of surgeon. On the following day, he was notified by the Secretary of the...
95 U.S. 750 (_) UNITED STATES v. McLEAN. Supreme Court of United States. *751 The Solicitor-General for the United States. Mr. Harvey Spalding, contra. MR. JUSTICE STRONG delivered the opinion of the court. The case of the claimant appears to be a hard one; but we think he has no remedy by suit in the Court of Claims. His claim rests not upon any contract with the government, either express or implied, but upon acts of Congress providing for a regulation of the salaries of deputy-postmasters....
