98 U.S. 463 (_) MINING COMPANY v. TARBET. Supreme Court of United States. Submitted on printed arguments by Mr. J.M. Woolworth for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Charles W. Bennett for the defendant in error. MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court. This was an action in the nature of trespass quare clausum fregit, brought in the District Court of the Territory of Utah for the third district, by Alexander Tarbet, and continued by his assignee, Helen Tarbet, against the...
98 U.S. 507 (_) REED v. McINTYRE. Supreme Court of United States. *508 Mr. E.C. Palmer for the appellant. Mr. E.G. Rogers and Mr George L. Otis, contra. *509 MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court. It is stated in the printed argument of counsel for the appellee, and the statement is not controverted by opposing counsel, that at the date of the assignment to Combs there was no statute of Minnesota relating to assignments by debtors for the benefit of...
99 U.S. 382 (_) RYAN v. RAILROAD COMPANY. Supreme Court of United States. *383 Mr. John Currey for the appellant. The Attorney-General for the United States. Mr. S.W. Sanderson, contra. *385 MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court. After this case was submitted to the court upon printed *386 arguments by the counsel of the parties, the Attorney-General expressed a wish to be heard in behalf of the United States, and an oral argument was thereupon ordered. The case was argued in...
99 U.S. 582 (_) UNITED STATES v. COUNTY OF MACON. Supreme Court of United States. *585 Mr. Joseph Shippen for the plaintiff in error. Mr. Willard P. Hall and Mr. James Carr for the defendant in error. *589 MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court. In United States v. County of Clark ( 96 U.S. 211 ), we decided that bonds issued by counties under sect. 13 of the act to incorporate the Missouri and Mississippi Railroad Company were debts of the county, and that for any balance...
101 U.S. 789 (_) POWERS v. COMLY. Supreme Court of United States. *790 Mr. Henry Flanders for the plaintiffs in error. The Solicitor-General, contra. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court. This case is substantially disposed of by Hadden v. The Collector ( 5 Wall. 107 ) and Sturges v. The Collector, 12 id. 19. Sect. 3 of the act of June 6, 1872 (17 Stat. 232), is in all material respects like the statutes under consideration in those cases where we held that countries "...
98 U.S. 433 (_) CARR v. UNITED STATES. Supreme Court of United States. Mr. William Matthews for the appellant. Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Smith, contra. MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court. This case arises upon a bill to quiet title, filed by the United States against the appellant, Carr, and various other persons, upon which a decree was rendered by the court below in favor of *434 the plaintiff. Carr appealed from this decree. The controversy relates to certain lands...
98 U.S. 98 (_) COUNTY OF DAVIESS v. HUIDEKOPER. Supreme Court of United States. Mr. Willard P. Hall for the plaintiff in error. Mr. Joseph Shippen, contra. MR. JUSTICE HUNT delivered the opinion of the court. The plaintiff below brought this suit to collect from the County of Daviess, Missouri, the amount of forty-four interest-coupons for $35 each, formerly attached to bonds issued by the county to the Chillicothe and Omaha Railroad Company, to aid in the construction of its railroad. A...
98 U.S. 546 (_) HENDRIE v. SAYLES. Supreme Court of United States. *547 Mr. D. Bethune Duffield for the appellant. Mr. Albert H. Walker, contra. *548 MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court. Patents or any interest therein may be assigned by an instrument in writing, and the patentee, his assigns or legal representatives, may in like manner grant and convey an exclusive right under the patent; and where the conveyance precedes the granting of the patent, it may be issued to the...
98 U.S. 242 (_) SLAUGHTER v. GLENN. Supreme Court of United States. Mr. W.S. Herndon for the appellants. Mr. Isaac C. Collins, contra. MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court. There is a considerable mass of testimony in the record, but *243 the facts are few, and we think there is nothing material about which there is any room for doubt. In the year 1863, and for some years previous, the appellant, Mrs. Slaughter, had owned in her own right the premises in controversy in this...
100 U.S. 104 (_) RICKER v. POWELL. Supreme Court of United States. *105 Submitted on printed arguments by Mr. Melville W. Fuller and Mr. W.C. Goudy for the appellant, and by Mr. Edward S. Isham, Mr. Julius Rosenthal, and Mr. A.M. Pence for the appellee. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court. This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court refusing the appellant leave to file a bill of review in that court. The facts are as follows: On the 8th of April, 1869, one H.H....
99 U.S. 674 (_) PERRIS v. HEXAMER. Supreme Court of United States. *675 Mr. J. Van Santvoord and Mr. J.J. Coombs, for the appellants, cited Jollie v. Jacques, 1 Blatchf. 618; Green v. Bishop, 1 Cliff. 199; Drury v. Ewing, 1 Bond, 540; Folsom v. Marsh, 2 Story, 100; Emerson v. Davies, 3 id. 768; Gray v. Russell, 1 id. 11; Story's Executors v. Holcombe, 4 McLean, 309; Daly v. Palmer, 6 Blatchf. 256. Mr. Joshua Pusey for the appellee. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court. The...
99 U.S. 594 (_) UNITED STATES v. FORD; UNITED STATES v. FORD; UNITED STATES v. ONE STILL; UNITED STATES v. FIFTY BARRELS OF DISTILLED SPIRITS; UNITED STATES v. THREE HUNDRED AND NINETEEN BARRELS OF WHISKEY; UNITED STATES v. FOUR HUNDRED BARRELS OF DISTILLED SPIRITS; UNITED STATES v. FOUR HUNDRED PACKAGES OF DISTILLED SPIRITS; UNITED STATES v. ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY BARRELS OF WHISKEY. Supreme Court of United States. *595 The Attorney-General for the United States. Mr. Edward Jussen and Mr....
98 U.S. 187 (_) STEWART v. SONNEBORN. Supreme Court of United States. *189 Mr. Roscoe Conkling for the plaintiffs in error. Mr. Philip Phillips, contra. *191 MR. JUSTICE STRONG, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court. The errors now assigned are exclusively to the charge given by the court to the jury. The instruction given was (inter alia) as follows: "But if they (the defendants) had no legal claim or demand against the complainant (Sonneborn), then, whether they had...
97 U.S. 541 (_) WELCH v. COOK. Supreme Court of United States. *542 Mr. Philip Phillips and Mr. William A. Maury for the appellant. Mr. Albert G. Riddle, contra. MR. JUSTICE HUNT, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court. It is not open to reasonable doubt that Congress had power to invest, and did invest, the District government with legislative authority, or that the act of the legislative assembly of June 26, 1873, was within that authority. We shall therefore consider the...
100 U.S. 153 (_) HINCKLEY v. RAILROAD COMPANY. Supreme Court of United States. Mr. G.W. Kretzinger for the appellant. Mr. R. Biddle Roberts for the appellee. *154 MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court. The main features of this case, as presented here on appeal, are embodied in the following statement signed by counsel: "To obviate the necessity of examining a large part of the very voluminous record filed in this cause, the following statement is agreed upon between the...
101 U.S. 362 (_) KAIN v. GIBBONEY. Supreme Court of United States. *364 Mr. John W. Johnston for the appellant. Mr. John A. Campbell, contra. MR. JUSTICE STRONG delivered the opinion of the court. The bequest which the complainant seeks to enforce by this bill was an attempted testamentary disposition under the law of Virginia, and the matter now to be determined is whether by that law it can be sustained. It may be conceded that, notwithstanding its uncertainty, a legacy given in the words of...
99 U.S. 48 (_) PLATT v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY. Supreme Court of United States. *53 Mr. James Lowndes for the appellant. The Attorney-General for the United States. Mr. Sidney Bartlett and Mr. Samuel Shellabarger, contra. *56 MR. JUSTICE STRONG delivered the opinion of the court. If it be conceded that the complainant has complied with all the conditions prescribed by the acts of Congress for the acquisition by a pre-emptioner of an equitable title to a portion of the public lands, the...
99 U.S. 86 (_) HACKETT v. OTTAWA. Supreme Court of United States. *88 Mr. Frank W. Hackett and Mr. G.S. Eldredge for the plaintiffs in error. Mr. C.B. Lawrence, contra. *90 MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court. The bonds in suit upon their face import: 1st, That the faith of the city is irrevocably pledged for their payment. 2d, That they were issued in pursuance of the power which the council possessed to borrow money on the credit of the city and issue bonds therefor, and...
100 U.S. 113 (_) LANSDALE v. DANIELS. Supreme Court of United States. Mr. Rodney Mason for the plaintiff in error. Mr. W.W. Cope and Mr. Walter Van Dyke, contra. MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court. Pre-emption rights of the kind in controversy are regulated by the act of March 3, 1853 (10 Stat. 244), from which it appears that unsurveyed as well as surveyed lands, not exempted by the same act, are subject to the pre-emption laws, with all the exceptions, conditions, and...
101 U.S. 93 (_) BAST v. BANK. Supreme Court of United States. Mr. F.W. Hughes for the plaintiff in error. Mr. R.M. Schick and Mr. G.R. Kaercher, contra. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court. This is an action on three notes made by Bast, the plaintiff in error, to the First National Bank of Ashland, defendant in error, dated March 1, 1876, and payable four months after date, two being for $2,000 each, and the other for $3,481.79. Simultaneously with the delivery of the...
