Pinellas FL and Lawsuits and disputes Lawyers | John Paul J -- eLawyers

Fashnacht v. Frank (1875)

Supreme Court of the United States Filed: Feb. 22, 1875 Citations: 1874 U.S. LEXIS 1320, 23 L. Ed. 81, 23 Wall. 416, 90 U.S. 416

90 U.S. 416 23 L. Ed. 81 23 Wall. 416 FASHNACHT v. FRANK. October Term, 1874 ON motion to dismiss, for want of jurisdiction, a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Louisiana. The case was thus: Frank, a citizen of New Orleans, having a mortgage on property in New Orleans of Fashnacht, a citizen of the Republic of Switzerland, obtained an order in the Fifth District Court for the Parish of New Orleans, for the seizure and sale of it. Fashnacht thereupon procured from the same court an injunction ..

Gibson v. Chouteau (1872)

Supreme Court of the United States Filed: Feb. 18, 1872 Citations: 13 Wall. 92, 1871 U.S. LEXIS 1317, 20 L. Ed. 534, 80 U.S. 92

80 U.S. 92 (_) 13 Wall. 92 GIBSON v. CHOUTEAU. Supreme Court of United States. *98 Messrs. Montgomery Blair and F.A. Dick, for the plaintiff in error. Messrs. Glover and Shepley, contra. *99 Mr. Justice FIELD delivered the opinion of the court. It is matter of common knowledge that statutes of limitation do not run against the State. That no laches can be imputed to the king, and that no time can bar his rights, was the maxim of the common law, and was founded on the principle of public policy, t..

181 Casey v. Cavaroc (1878)

Supreme Court of the United States Filed: Apr. 15, 1878 Citations: 1877 U.S. LEXIS 1686, 24 L. Ed. 779, 96 U.S. 467

96 U.S. 467 (1877) CASEY v. CAVAROC. Supreme Court of United States. *473 Mr. Thomas Allen Clarke in support of the decree. Mr. J.D. Rouse and Mr. Charles Case, contra. *475 MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court. The substance of the agreement in this case, so far as necessary to be considered, was, that the Credit Mobilier should accept the drafts of the banking association to the amount of a million of francs at ninety days, the bank agreeing to furnish..

556 Francis v. United States (1878)

Supreme Court of the United States Filed: Feb. 18, 1878 Citations: 1877 U.S. LEXIS 1672, 24 L. Ed. 663, 96 U.S. 354

96 U.S. 354 (1877) FRANCIS v. UNITED STATES. Supreme Court of United States. *356 Mr. John B. Sanborn for the appellant. The Solicitor-General, contra. MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court. Post commanders in the military department where the present controversy arose were ordered to assume control of all timber, wood, hay, and grazing upon the public lands adjacent *357 to their respective posts, to the extent that the same were there required for the public use. Supplies for ..

153 Hitchcock v. Galveston (1878)

Supreme Court of the United States Filed: Feb. 18, 1878 Citations: 1877 U.S. LEXIS 1671, 24 L. Ed. 659, 96 U.S. 341

96 U.S. 341 (1877) HITCHCOCK v. GALVESTON. Supreme Court of United States. *344 Mr. F. Charles Hume and Mr. S.S. Henkle for the plaintiffs in error. Mr. W.P. Ballinger and Mr. George Flournoy, contra. *347 MR. JUSTICE STRONG, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court. The demurrer to the plaintiffs' petition raises several questions, all relating to the validity or construction of the agreement between the parties. These questions were not all considered by the Circuit Court, but..

Dollar Savings Bank v. United States (1874)

Supreme Court of the United States Filed: Mar. 18, 1874 Citations: 1873 U.S. LEXIS 1442, 19 Wall. 227, 22 L. Ed. 80, 86 U.S. 227

86 U.S. 227 (_) 19 Wall. 227 THE DOLLAR SAVINGS BANK v. UNITED STATES. Supreme Court of United States. *231 Mr. B.R. Curtis, for the plaintiff in error. Mr. C.H. Hill, Assistant Attorney-General, contra. *234 Mr. Justice STRONG delivered the opinion of the court. The facts found by the special verdict are that the plaintiff in error is a banking institution created by the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, without stockholders or capital stock, and doing the business of receiving deposits to be l..

Crews v. Brewer (1874)

Supreme Court of the United States Filed: Jan. 19, 1874 Citations: 1873 U.S. LEXIS 1427, 19 Wall. 70, 22 L. Ed. 63, 86 U.S. 70

86 U.S. 70 (_) 19 Wall. 70 CREWS v. BREWER. Supreme Court of United States. Mr. Albert Pike, for the plaintiff in error; Mr. Gustavus Koerner, contra. Mr. Justice CLIFFORD stated the case and delivered the opinion of the court. Complaint was made by the plaintiff that the defendant, *71 at the time and place mentioned in the declaration, broke and entered the plaintiff's close therein described and ejected him from the premises, and that the defendant still unlawfully withholds the possession of ..

247 Southern Express Co. v. Dickson (1877)

Supreme Court of the United States Filed: May 18, 1877 Citations: 1876 U.S. LEXIS 1905, 24 L. Ed. 285, 94 U.S. 549

94 U.S. 549 (1876) SOUTHERN EXPRESS COMPANY v. DICKSON. Supreme Court of United States. Mr. Clarence A. Seward, for the plaintiff in error. Mr. Conway Robinson and Mr. Leigh Robinson, contra. MR. JUSTICE HUNT delivered the opinion of the court. The case, in brief, is this: The agent of the plaintiff Dickson delivered to the express company at Greensboro', N.C., fifty-two boxes of tobacco, to be shipped to Columbia, S.C. The boxes were consigned to Trent & Rea at that place, and the delivery to th..

Union Ins. Co. v. United States (1868)

Supreme Court of the United States Filed: Mar. 25, 1868 Citations: 18 L. Ed. 879, 1867 U.S. LEXIS 1025, 6 Wall. 759, 73 U.S. 759

73 U.S. 759 (_) 6 Wall. 759 UNION INSURANCE COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. Supreme Court of United States. *762 Mr. Durant, for the appellants; Mr. Stanbery, A.G., and Mr. Ashton, special counsel of the United States, contra. *763 The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court. The first questions in this cause relate to jurisdiction. It was urged in argument, that the act of Congress does not authorize the proceedings instituted in the Circuit Court. The answer to this proposition must be deter..

The Wren (1868)

Supreme Court of the United States Filed: Mar. 23, 1868 Citations: 18 L. Ed. 876, 1867 U.S. LEXIS 1010, 6 Wall. 582, 73 U.S. 582

73 U.S. 582 (_) 6 Wall. 582 THE WREN. Supreme Court of United States. *585 Mr. Pierrepont, for the appellant, contended &mdash. Mr. Ashton, special counsel of the United States, contra, argued &mdash. *586 Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court. The court below condemned the vessel on the ground that she was the property of the enemies of the United States. And this is the only question in the case. For, although it was insisted on the argument that the condemnation might have been..

John Paul Jones