Find court opinions that match your case.

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1866

Higueras v. United States

Higueras v. United States. 1. Land claims arising by virtue of a right or title-derived from the Spanish or Mexican government are required to be. presented to the land commissioners for adjudication. 2. Final'decrees in such cases, whether

72 U.S. 827 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a 1866

German v. United States

German v. United States. An appeal from California dismissed where the record was not brought, and filed within sixty days of the next term of the court; the record, moreover, not having been returned within the term. On motion to dismiss a

72 U.S. 825 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a 1866

Alviso v. United States

Alviso v. United States. A citation to the adverse party, with' due return or waiver by general appearance, or otherwise, is indispensable to jurisdiction on appeal. On motion to dismiss an appeal from the District Court for Northern Califo

72 U.S. 824 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a 1866

Garrison v. Cass County

Garrison v. Cass County. Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction, where the decree was rérideréd 13th June, 1861, hut no appeal was-prayed for or allowed until Junó Term, 1865, when, on motion of the defendants below, an appeal was allowe

72 U.S. 823 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a 1866

Seymour v. Freer

Seymour v. Freer. Where, through mistake or accident, no bond, or a'defective bond, has been filed, this court will not dismiss the appeal, — if it is in all other respecta quite regulaf, — except on failure to comply with ati order to give

72 U.S. 822 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a 1866

Withenbury v. United States

Withenbury v. United States. A decree in a prize cause, which disposes of the whole matter in controversy, upon a claim filed hy particular parties; which is final as to them and their rights, and final also so far as the claimants and thei

72 U.S. 819 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Reversed Tax Law 1866

Lee v. Dodge

Lee v. Dodge. In this case, which was a controversy of fact chiefly, a decree of conveyance of land alleged to have been agreed, by correspondence, to be conveyed, was refused ; the court being compelled, from all the circumstances in proof

72 U.S. 808 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1866

Deery v. Cray

Deery v. Cray. 1. No person can rely on an estoppel growing out of a transaction to which be was neither a party nor a privy, anil which in no manner touches his rights, Hence where a plaintiff claims under A. and his deed, defendants who d

72 U.S. 795 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Employment Law 1866

O'Neal v. Kirkpatrick

O’Neal v. Kirkpatrick. On tbe 13th of May, 1851, the legislature of California passed an act which . provides for the reclamation and sale of the “swamp and overflowed lands” of the State. The twenty-seventh section declares that the provis

72 U.S. 791 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1866

Kelly v. Crawford

Kelly v. Crawford. 1. Where agents, in the sale of an article, acknowledging a debt of unascertained amount due their principals, sign an agreement passing certain debts described as “ all accounts hereunto attached, and marked Exhibit A,”

72 U.S. 785 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Tax Law 1866

Supervisors v. Schenck

Supervisors v. Schenck. The levy of a tax and payment of interest by the proper county authorities, validates, in the hands of bond fide holders for value, county bonds, issued in their origin, irregularly, as ex gr. in virtue of a popular

72 U.S. 772 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Tax Law 1866

The New York Indians

The New York Indians. 1. Where Indians, being in possession of lands, their ancient and native homes, the enjoyment of which, “without disturbance by the United States,” has been secured to them by treaty with the Federal government, with t

72 U.S. 761 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded Intellectual Property 1866

The Kansas Indians

The Kansas Indians 1. The State of Kansas has no right to tax lands held in severalty by individual Indians of the Shawnee, Miami, and' Wea tribes,.under patents issued to. them by virtue of the treaties made with those tribes respectively

72 U.S. 737 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Tax Law 1866

City of Philadelphia v. Collector

City of Philadelphia v. The Collector. 1. The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court in a case between citizens of the same State, under the internal revenue laws of July 1, 1862, and March 3, 1863, removed thereto, from a State court under the

72 U.S. 720 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1866

Bates v. Brown

Bates v. Brown. The rule of the common law, commonly called “ the rule of shifting inheri tance, ” is not in force in Illinois. This was a writ of error to the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Kinzie Bates, the plaintiff

72 U.S. 710 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Tax Law 1866

City of Galena v. Amy

City of Galena v. Amy. 1. Where an act, amending a city charter, says that the city council “may, if it believe that the public good, and the best interests of the city require ” it, levy q tax to pay its funded debt, a mandamus will lie) a

72 U.S. 705 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Business & Corporate Law 1866

Nash v. Towne

Nash v. Towne. 1. Courts, in the construction of contracts, look to the language employed, the subject-matter, and the surrounding circumstances; and may avail themselves of the same light which the parties enjoyed when the contract was exe

72 U.S. 689 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a 1866

Wolcott v. Des Moines Co.

Wolcott v. Des Moines Company. The proviso in the act of Congress of May 15, 1856 (11 Stat. at Darge, 9), making a grant of lands to the State of Iowa, in alternate sections, to aid in the construction of certain railroads in said State, bv

72 U.S. 681 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Bankruptcy & Debt 1866

Thompson v. Riggs

Thompson v. Riggs. 1. The.eighth section of the act of Congress of 1863 (12 Stat. at Large, 764), to reorganize the courts of the District of Columbia, and which says, “ that if, upon the trial of. the cause, an exception be taken, the bill

72 U.S. 663 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Remanded 1866

Milwaukee Railroad v. Soutter

The Milwaukee Railroad Co. v. Soutter and Knapp. Tbo act of confirming or setting aside a sale made by a commissioner in chancery, involving, as it often does, the exercise of a very delicate' judgment and discretion, cannot be regarded as

72 U.S. 660 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Family Law 1866

United States v. Macdonald

United States v. Macdonald. A collector of customs is entitled to retain, under the fifth section of the act of March 3d, 1841 (5 Stat. at Large, 432), a sum no£ exceeding $2000 per annum from his receipts, as storage for the custody and sa

72 U.S. 647 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Business & Corporate Law 1866

The Sea Lion

The Sea Lion. 1 Under the act of 18th July, 1861, which forbade all commercial inter course between the inhabitants of a State whom the President should proclaim in a state of insurrection, and the citizens of the rest of the United States,

72 U.S. 630 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Affirmed Intellectual Property 1866

De Haro v. United States

De Haro v. United States. I. In 1844, persons in California petitioned the Mexican governor of that province for a grant of certain described land, situated in the vicinity of the Mission of San Francisco. The petition was referred to the s

72 U.S. 599 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion

Outcome n/a Intellectual Property 1866

Packet Co. v. Sickles

Packet Company v. Sickles. 1. Where the record of a former suit is offered in evidence, the declaration setting out a special contract, but not saying whethel- it was written “or parol, and where jurors who 'were empanelled in the former su

72 U.S. 580 Supreme Court of the United States Read opinion