Robert Cooper Grier

This case involved a dispute over whether the Secretary of the Treasury could remit penalties for attempting to evade internal revenue taxes after a seizure of property and entry of judgment. The court held that the Secretary has authority under the remission acts to remit penalties or forfeitures at any time before the money is actually paid over to the collector, and that this power extends to shares claimed by customs officers or others. The core reasoning, drawn from United States v. Morris, was that such interests remain conditional and unvested until payment occurs, the Secretary's discretion is an act of mercy rather than a judicial function, and courts have no power to review or override it once the primary tax has been collected. The Court of Claims had dismissed the claim for a share of the penalties, and the Supreme Court affirmed.

taxesfederal power

The case involved a claim by Kellogg against the United States seeking additional payment under a contract for supplying bricks for the Washington aqueduct. The original contract, made by Captain Meigs on behalf of the United States with Degges & Smith, prohibited assignment or sub-letting, and Kellogg operated only as an agent or employee of the sureties Mechlin & Alexander rather than as a recognized party to the agreement with the government. A congressional resolution authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to settle accounts with the contract parties, but the secretary properly excluded Kellogg and paid the funds to the sureties. The Court of Claims sustained a demurrer to the petition, and the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, concluding that Kellogg had no legal basis for recovery beyond the partial payment he had already accepted under protest.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

The case involved heirs of Stephen Girard challenging the City of Philadelphia's continued administration of a charitable trust under his will after the city's consolidation expanded its boundaries, arguing that the corporation's identity had changed, rendering it unable to fulfill the trust. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the bill, holding that the Consolidation Act did not destroy the corporation's identity or its capacity to hold and administer the trust. The court reasoned that the trust remains valid, the legislature had authority to modify the municipal corporation while preserving its powers and duties regarding the trust, and the heirs lacked any interest or standing to intervene, as only the state could address any potential issues in administration.

propertyprocedure

This case concerned repeated claims by the legal representatives of George Fisher against the United States for property damage caused by U.S. troops in 1813, which had already resulted in multiple congressional resolutions and five prior payments totaling over $66,000. The court affirmed the judgment denying additional recovery, including interest, after Congress repealed the 1860 joint resolution that had authorized the Secretary of War to investigate and adjust the claims. The core reasoning was that the Secretary acted only in a ministerial capacity under instructions from Congress, not as an arbitrator whose award could create vested rights binding on the government; therefore, the repeal merely withdrew one tribunal without violating any rights, and Congress retained authority to modify or end the claims process.

federal powerprocedureproperty

The case concerned whether a provision in a railroad company's mortgage regarding taxes applied to income taxes owed by bondholders under the revenue act of 1864, and whether the company could withhold such taxes from payments to bondholders. The Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court's ruling in favor of the railroad's position on the tax issue. The opinion explained that the mortgage's defeasance clause addressed only covenants between the mortgagor and mortgagee to protect against taxes incurred during possession, and had no application to bondholder income taxes. It further noted that the statute facilitated tax collection by authorizing corporations to deduct or withhold the tax amount unless they had contracted otherwise with bondholders, with credits applied to prevent double taxation.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a collision between a steam-powered propeller vessel and a sailing schooner, in which the propeller made an abrupt change of course leading to impact. The Supreme Court affirmed the district and circuit courts' rulings that the propeller was solely at fault and liable for the schooner's damages. The core reasoning was that the propeller lacked a competent lookout, which would have detected the schooner from a safe distance, and that the schooner had no legal duty to display a light prior to the 1864 statute and could not reasonably do so amid the sudden peril; because the lower courts' factual findings were supported by evidence, they were not disturbed on appeal.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned the interpretation of a provision in a treaty with the Choctaw Indians under which heads of families who chose to remain in ceded territory could receive a reservation of 640 acres plus additional acreage for their children. The dispute centered on whether patents issued to the fathers conveyed fee simple title solely to them or created a trust interest in the children. The Supreme Court held that the patents granted full title to the parents without any trust for the children. The Court reasoned that the treaty language, consistent administrative practice, and the issuance of patents to the heads of families alone supported this construction, and that a later act of Congress could not retroactively alter vested titles. It further concluded that equity would not impose a constructive trust on a bona fide purchaser who had paid value without notice of any claimed equitable interest.

propertyfederal power

This case involves a petition to the Supreme Court for leave to file a bill of review in the lower court after an earlier affirmance of a judgment against the complainant in a dispute over a parol contract for exchanging property. The Court denied the motion. The reasoning was that the complainant failed to present any new evidence or legal error warranting review under established rules for bills of review, as the original claim did not justify equitable relief disregarding the statute of frauds based solely on a breach of promise.

procedureproperty

The case Evans v. Patterson involved a dispute over land title in Pennsylvania, where Patterson claimed ownership based on a warrant originally in the name of William Barker and a deed-poll to Daniel Broadhead, whose heirs' interests he had purchased. Evans, as a settler claiming through his father, challenged Patterson's title in an ejectment action. The court decided to affirm the lower court's judgment in favor of Patterson. The reasoning centered on Pennsylvania's land law allowing recovery based on equitable interests and prior ejectment verdicts being conclusive between the same parties or their privies, even if one suit was brought in the warrantee's name as trustee; additionally, Patterson had properly deraigned his title from the original warrantee.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned whether a prior judgment in an ejectment action, which seeks to recover possession of real property, bars a subsequent action on the same title under common-law principles of estoppel and res judicata. The court held that a verdict and judgment in ejectment is conclusive between the parties and their privies, answering the certified question in the affirmative. It reasoned that the common-law rule treating a recovery in one action as a bar to another applies universally to all actions based on subject matter, regardless of whether they involve real or personal property. Although ejectment originated as a fictional trespass action with limited preclusive effect, modern statutory reforms eliminating those fictions require treating its judgments as binding. Arkansas statutes and decisions contain no exception preserving a right to multiple trials in real-property cases.

propertyprocedure

The case was an admiralty suit brought by the owner and master of the steamer World against the steamboat Hill and its master/owner for damages arising from the destruction of cargo on the World. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' rulings on several procedural points, including the propriety of amending the libel to drop the pilot as a defendant, the permissibility of joining in rem claims against the vessel with in personam claims against the owner under admiralty rules, and the libellant's standing to sue as bailee of the cargo even after abandoning the claim to insurers. On the merits, which depended on conflicting witness testimony about the underlying incident, the Court affirmed the decree in favor of the libellant because the district and circuit courts had concurred after reviewing the evidence and this Court does not reweigh credibility or factual findings absent clear error.

proceduretorts & liability

This admiralty case involved a collision in which a steamboat struck a stationary barge that was properly fastened to a pier. The barge had no obligation to display a light or maintain a watch, and the channel was wide enough for the steamboat to navigate safely without external forces compelling the contact. The court held the steamboat liable for the resulting damages, reasoning that its ability to control its movement made the collision itself conclusive evidence of improper management, with no vis major or sudden weather event excusing the fault. On the measure of damages, the court affirmed the district court's use of repair costs rather than market value or lost profits, as the barge was repairable and no fixed market value existed for such vessels.

torts & liability

This case involved a collision in a harbor where the steamer Louisiana broke from its moorings at a wharf and struck the Flushing, which was aground and stationary outside the navigation channel. The court held the Louisiana liable for the resulting damages. It reasoned that the vessel's owners failed to prove the drifting resulted from an inevitable accident or vis major, as the wind was not unforeseeable, other ships remained secure, and the mooring was inadequate to handle the changing tide and wind forces acting on the vessel's length. The court noted that proper nautical precautions, such as repositioning or using anchors and steam power, could have prevented the incident. The lower court's decree against the Louisiana was affirmed with costs.

torts & liability

The case concerned whether the U.S. Supreme Court retained jurisdiction over an appeal from a Nevada territorial court after Nevada's admission as a state, given that the admission act omitted provisions for pending cases. The Court held that a subsequent act of Congress authorizing the transfer and resolution of such cases was valid and did not improperly interfere with vested rights or exercise judicial power. The decision rested on Congress's exclusive authority to legislate for territories and to correct omissions in prior statutes through remedial measures, as well as the need for concurrent federal and state action to handle the transition of jurisdiction. On the underlying dispute, which involved a claim of partnership liability, the Court found no reviewable error in the denial of a new trial or the exclusion of certain private correspondence as evidence.

federal powerprocedure

The case involved heirs and an assignee challenging a judicial sale of estate property by an administrator more than 25 years earlier, alleging fraud in the administration account and related documents. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the chancery bill, holding that the claim was barred by laches and staleness. The court reasoned that the transaction had been public with no fraudulent concealment, that interested parties including adults and guardians had acquiesced for decades, and that key witnesses had died, making it inequitable to reopen settled accounts after such delay. It applied equitable principles discouraging antiquated demands absent specific impediments to earlier action caused by the opposing party.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned a dispute over whether land near Fort Leavenworth was properly included in an 1829 grant to the Delaware Indians or instead reserved for U.S. military use, and whether patents issued to appellant Stone for that land were valid. The Court held that the patents were void and affirmed the decree canceling them. It reasoned that an 1830 survey, conducted with the Delawares' agent and later confirmed by presidential action, established the military reservation boundaries, placing the disputed land outside the Indian grant and beyond the authority of land-office officials to convey. The Court further noted that one executive officer could not unilaterally overturn prior reservations made by the President or his predecessors, and that long acquiescence in the surveyed lines supported their finality.

propertyfederal power

The case concerned a patent infringement dispute over machines for making hat bodies, specifically whether the Boyden machine infringed on an original patent granted to Wells for improvements involving feeding belts, a rotating brush, a tunnel, and a perforated cone. The assignees had surrendered the original patent and obtained reissues with broader claims that attempted to cover the general process or result of forming bats of fur fibers rather than the specific mechanical combination described. The Supreme Court held that the Boyden machine did not infringe Wells's invention and that the reissued patent was void to the extent it expanded beyond the original specification. The core reasoning was that a patent for a machine must be limited to the particular devices and combination claimed in the original grant, and reissues cannot be used to convert it into an abstract claim over principles, functions, or subsequent inventions.

business & regulatory

The case concerned whether Mercer County could refuse payment on bonds it had issued to subscribe to railroad stock, which were now held by a bona fide purchaser for value. The county sought to introduce evidence that the bonds had not been issued in strict compliance with statutory procedures, such as proper grand jury recommendation, and that the railroad had engaged in fraud or sold the bonds below par. The Supreme Court held that the county remained liable and affirmed judgment for the bondholder. The Court reasoned that the bonds were regular on their face, that purchasers need not investigate underlying compliance once the bonds had been issued and negotiated, and that these instruments function as negotiable commercial paper whose validity cannot be defeated by prior irregularities or fraud when held by innocent parties.

business & regulatory

The case concerned a bill challenging trusts in a will on grounds of alienage of the life tenant Mrs. De Valle and her children, seeking to have trustees convey the estate to a contingent remainder-man or the testator's heirs at law. The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the original bill and rejection of a cross-bill filed by heirs, ruling that an alien may take by devise until action by the sovereign and that courts lack power to issue declaratory decrees on future contingent rights of parties not in esse. The core reasoning was that the cross-bill was not auxiliary to the original suit, introduced an unrelated controversy over perpetuities and future interests, and lacked any necessity such as protecting trustees, while the original decree fully resolved the case presented.

propertyprocedure

This case concerned a patent infringement dispute involving machines for hardening hat bodies using pressure and reciprocating motion. Taylor's patent (reissued to Burr) covered a specific combination of known devices to achieve this result, but the reissued version added broader language referencing a "vibrating concave surface" after examining Boyden's competing machine. The court determined that Boyden's design, which employed a distinct combination including a vibrating concave cloth surface against the cone, did not constitute infringement of Taylor's patent. Affirming the lower court's decree, the opinion reasoned that the patent could not be interpreted broadly enough to cover Boyden's machine without rendering it invalid as overly broad, and it protected only the particular combination described rather than abstract generalizations.

business & regulatory