Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Court: us supreme court Year: 1903 Page 7 of about 64 results (0.073 seconds)

Nov 30 1903 (FN)

Louisville Trust Co. Vs. Knott

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Nov-30-1903

..... forthwith to deliver to him all such property and assets of every kind and description. that receiver took immediate possession, and, under the authority of the court, entered into a contract with the new company for the publication of the paper until the assets of the old company were sold. the plaintiff in the suit in the state court entered, june .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 18 1903 (FN)

Riverside Oil Co. Vs. Hitchcock

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : May-18-1903

..... defect in the exchange, and there is no issue in the record charging a failure to comply with the law. the affidavits, though not essential to the validity of the contract of exchange tendered by congress, and accepted and completed by the relinquishment and selection aforesaid, did in law and in fact allege the nonoccupancy of the land as understood in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 23 1903 (FN)

Prout Vs. Starr

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-23-1903

..... several states, which forbid the states from entering into any treaty, alliance, or confederation, from passing any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or, without the consent of congress, from laying any duty of tonnage, entering into any agreement or compact with other states, or from engaging in war -- all of which provisions ..... property without due process of law, or to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, or to pass a law impairing the obligation of a contract, or which interferes with commerce between the states. on october 3, 1893, the complainants filed their replication to the answer. at and about the same time and in the same .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 30 1903 (FN)

Owensboro Vs. Owensboro Waterworks Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Nov-30-1903

..... the owensboro water company the right to construct waterworks, nor by the ordinance of june 3, 1889, approving the transfer of the rights and contracts of that company to the owensboro water works company, the appellee herein. nor is the city, by said ordinance, precluded from regulating the business ..... or knowledge, and, besides, the page 191 u. s. 366 city had no power to pass the ordinance, and that the latter violates the contract existing between appellee and the city. it is also alleged that financial injury will result to appellee from the enforcement of the ordinance in regard to ..... 10th of june, 1889, relying upon the ordinance of the 3d, the appellee consummated the purchase from the water company of its works, franchises, and contracts, and received them from that company, and it "has ever since then under the orders and direction" of the city, maintained and extended its ..... a waterworks plant for supplying the city and its inhabitants with water, and accepted the appellee as the successor of the water company to the contracts between the latter and the city. the ordinance was expressed to be in consideration "of the purchase, by the owensboro waterworks company of owensboro, ..... of the state. the construction of the statute is contested by the appellee. the appellee urges, besides, that the statute, so interpreted, violates its contract with the city, and that the rates as fixed deprive it (the appellee) of its property without due process of law. these contentions make the .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //