Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Page 72818 of about 755,866 results (5.177 seconds)

May 13 1912 (FN)

Louisville Vs. Cumberland Tel. and Tel. Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Louisville v. Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co. - 224 U.S. 649 (1912) U.S. Supreme Court Louisville v. Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co., 224 U.S. 649 (1912) Louisville v. Cumberland Telephone and Telegraph Company No. 197 Argued March 7, 8, 1912 Decided May 13, 1912 224 U.S. 649 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY Syllabus Under the then Constitution of Kentucky, in 1886, the legislature had the sole right to create corporations and grant franchises to use the streets of municipalities; a charter granted by the state, subject to conditions to be imposed by the municipality, became, after the acceptance of the conditions, a grant not of the municipality, but of the state, and one which cannot be impaired by an ordinance made by the municipality. The new constitution of 1891, conferring upon municipalities the right to grant street franchises, and the later statute repealing special corporate privileges, did not and could not repeal rig...

Tag this Judgment!

May 13 1912 (FN)

Choate Vs. Trapp

Court : US Supreme Court

Choate v. Trapp - 224 U.S. 665 (1912) U.S. Supreme Court Choate v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665 (1912) Choate v. Trapp No. 809 Argued February 23, 1912 Decided May 13, 1912 224 U.S. 665 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Syllabus There is a broad distinction between the power to abrogate a statute and to destroy rights acquired under it, and while Congress, under its plenary power over Indian tribes, can amend or repeal an agreement by a later statute, it cannot destroy actually existing individual rights of property acquired under a former statute or agreement. The individual Choctaw and Chickasaw Indian had no title or enforceable right in tribal property, but Congress recognized his equitable interest therein in the Curtis Act of June 28, 1898, 30 Stat. 505, and offered to give to him, in consideration of his consenting to the distribution, an allotment of nontaxable land, and the acceptance of the patent by each member of the tribe was on the consideration of r...

Tag this Judgment!

May 13 1912 (FN)

Gleason Vs. Wood

Court : US Supreme Court

Gleason v. Wood - 224 U.S. 679 (1912) U.S. Supreme Court Gleason v. Wood, 224 U.S. 679 (1912) Gleason v. Wood No. 575 Argued February 23, 1912 Decided May 13, 1912 224 U.S. 679 `ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Syllabus Decided on authority of Choate v. Trapp, ante, p. 224 U. S. 665 . 28 Okl. 502 reversed. The facts, which involve the taxability of Choctaw allotments in Oklahoma, are stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE LAMAR delivered the opinion of the Court. The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs are Choctaws owning homesteads and surplus granted under the terms of the Atoka Agreement. Their applications to enjoin the officers of the State of Oklahoma from assessing their lands for taxation for the year 1909 were denied. All of the Page 224 U. S. 680 questions involved are disposed of by the decision in Choate v. Trapp, ante, p. 224 U. S. 665 . The judgment therefore is reversed, and the case remanded, with directions for further proceed...

Tag this Judgment!

May 13 1912 (FN)

English Vs. Richardson

Court : US Supreme Court

English v. Richardson - 224 U.S. 680 (1912) U.S. Supreme Court English v. Richardson, 224 U.S. 680 (1912) English v. Richardson No. 559 Argued February 23, 1912 Decided May 13, 1912 224 U.S. 680 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Syllabus Decided on authority of Choate v. Trapp, ante, p. 224 U. S. 665 . 28 Okl. 408 reversed. The facts, which involve the taxability of Creek allotments in Oklahoma, are stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE LAMAR delivered the opinion of the Court. The plaintiff holds a patent dated December 12, 1902. It was issued to her as a member of the Creek Nation when the tribal lands were divided in pursuance of the same general policy as that discussed in Choate v. Trapp, ante, p. 224 U. S. 665 . There were, however, a few differences. The tax exemption covered only the homestead of forty acres, Page 224 U. S. 681 and there was a restriction on alienability for twenty-one years. The patent, instead of being "framed in confo...

Tag this Judgment!

May 13 1912 (FN)

The Jason

Court : US Supreme Court

The Jason - 225 U.S. 32 (1912) U.S. Supreme Court The Jason, 225 U.S. 32 (1912) The Jason * No. 220 Argued April 18, 1912 Decided May 13, 1912 225 U.S. 32 ON CERTIFICATE FROM THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus A general average agreement inserted in bills of lading, providing that, if the owner of the ship shall have exercised due diligence to make the ship in all respects seaworthy and properly manned, equipped, and supplied, the cargo shall contribute in general average with the shipowner even if the loss resulted from negligence in the navigation of the ship, is valid under the Harter Act, and entitles the shipowner to collect a general average contribution from the cargo owners in respect to sacrifices made and extraordinary expenditures incurred by him for the common benefit and safety of ship, cargo, and freight subsequent to a negligent stranding. Under 3 of the Harter Act, the cargo owners under the same circumstances have ...

Tag this Judgment!

May 13 1912 (FN)

Valdes Vs. Central Altagracia, Inc.

Court : US Supreme Court

Valdes v. Central Altagracia, Inc. - 225 U.S. 58 (1912) U.S. Supreme Court Valdes v. Central Altagracia, Inc., 225 U.S. 58 (1912) Valdes v. Central Altagracia, Incorporated Nos. 193, 196 Submitted March 6, 1912 Decided May 13, 1912 225 U.S. 58 APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PORTO RICO Syllabus The record in this case shows that the court below did not err in bringing this case to a speedy conclusion and avoiding the loss occasioned by the litigation to all concerned. A litigant cannot, after all parties have acquiesced in the order setting the case for trial and the court has denied his request for continuance, refuse to proceed with the trial on the ground that the time to plead has not expired, and when such refusal to proceed is inconsistent with his prior attitude in the case. The granting of a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and not subject to be reviewed on appeal except in cases of clear error and abuse; in t...

Tag this Judgment!

May 13 1912 (PC)

Ganesh Prasad Vs. Damodardas and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 16Ind.Cas.177

1. When this appeal first came up for hearing, a preliminary objection was taken to the effect that the order complained of was in substance, if not in form, an order dismissing the suit for default, and that no appeal lay. Notice was accordingly issued to the defendants-respondents to show cause why this Court should not take up the matter in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. We have to-day heard both parties, and we consider it unnecessary to discuss or to determine the question whether an appeal does or does not lie. We are satisfied that if an appeal does not lie, the order of the Court below is liable to be set aside in revision as having been passed without jurisdiction. The position was this. The parties had referred the matter dispute to arbitration and had named two arbitrators and an umpire. For some reason or other, the notices issued by the Court to the umpire and to one of the arbitrators were returned unserved. The remaining arbitrator had expressed his willing...

Tag this Judgment!

May 13 1912 (PC)

Shamsher Ali Vs. Jagarnath ThiraIn and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : 16Ind.Cas.203

1. We are invited in this appeal to set aside an order granting an application for review of judgment. The appellant applied on the 6th December 1910 for reversal of an execution sale held on the 9th November 1910. The sale was set aside on the 6th December, upon payment of the sums mentioned in Rule 89 of Order XXI of the Code of 1908. The auction purchaser was dissatisfied with this order and preferred an appeal to the District Judge. The appeal was dismissed on the 6th April 1911. On the 16th May following an application was made for review of this order; it was however, presented before the Subordinate Judge as the District Judge was absent from the station. The Subordinate Judge received the application, registered it and directed notices to issue to the opposite party. Later on, the District Judge returned and passed various orders relating to the postponement of the case and analogous matters. Before the application could be heard on the meris, the learned District Judge unfortu...

Tag this Judgment!

May 13 1912 (PC)

Bamapada Roy and ors. Vs. the Midnapur Zemindary Co. Ltd.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : 16Ind.Cas.376

1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants in a suit for enhancement of rent of a tenure. The litigation has now lasted for over seven years and the plaintiffs-respondents have met with varying fortune at successive stages. In the Court of first instance, a decree for enhancement was made in their favour to the extent of Rs. 199-12. Upon appeal, the District Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that the property in question was not a tenure but an occupancy-holding. Upon appeal to this Court, the case was remanded. The District Judge has after remand made a desree in favour of the plaintiffs for enhancement to the extent of Rs. 906. On the present appeal by the defendants, it has been contended, first, that the disputed property is an occupancy-holding and the rent cannot be enhanced under Section 7 of the Bengal Tenancy Act; secondly, that if the disputed property is a tenure, the rent is not liable to be enhanced, because its history indicates that the rent was fixed in perpe...

Tag this Judgment!

May 13 1912 (PC)

Lal Behary Mitra Vs. Nagendra Nath Chatterjee and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : 16Ind.Cas.690

1. This appeal is directed against an order made by the Court of Appeal below in affirmance of an order of the original Court, whereby an application to set aside an execution sale on the ground of fraud and material irregularity was dismissed. A preliminary objection has been taken to the competency of the appeal on the ground, that it is barred under Section 104(2) of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908, read with Order XLIII, Rule 1, Clause (j). There is, in our opinion, no substance in this contention. The order of the Court of first instance was made on the 21st September 1907. That order, in accordance with the law as interpreted by this Court at the time, was an order under Section 244 of it Code of 1882 and was consequently in the nature of a decree. Nemai Chand v. Dino Nath Kanjis C.W,N. 691 : Moti Lal Chakerbutty v. Russick Chandra Bairagi 26 C. 326(note) : 3 C.W.N. 395 : Bhubon Mohun Pal v. Nunda Lal Dey 26 C. 324 : 3 C.W.N. 399 : Hira Lal Ghose v. Chundra Kanto Ghose 26 C. 539...

Tag this Judgment!


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