This case concerned a dispute in equity over whether the Leonards' purchase of a mortgage from the Notch heirs on property formerly owned by Jonathan Tobey was made on behalf of the Tobeys as security for repayment of notes totaling $2500, entitling the Tobeys to reconveyance upon payment. The Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court's decree for the defendants, concluding that the purchase was intended to assist the Tobeys in retaining their home. The decision rested on statements from seven unimpeached witnesses detailing conversations with the Leonards that confirmed this arrangement, which the court found sufficient to overcome the denials in the defendants' answers under equitable rules of evidence. The court further determined that later purchasers of portions of the property had notice of the Tobeys' claims and thus could not claim protection as bona fide purchasers without notice, and it directed reconveyance upon repayment of the debt minus credits for wood sales, while rejecting application of the statute of frauds.
The case involved a dispute over priority to a fund held in trust by Wetmore for Hamilton, stemming from commissions on claims against the government of Texas. Spain claimed priority based on an assignment from Hamilton of his rights to those commissions, but the assignment was expressly subject to prior assignments, and Spain had not inquired about other claims or given timely notice to the trustee. The Supreme Court held that other creditors, including Corcoran & Riggs, had priority because Spain's negligence allowed Hamilton to make subsequent assignments without notice, and affirmed the circuit court's decree accordingly.
The case involved Clement L. Vallandigham, who was tried, convicted, and imprisoned by a military commission during the Civil War for alleged offenses against the Union war effort. He petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the commission's proceedings. The Court denied the writ, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction because military commissions derive authority from the common law of war rather than statute, and they are not courts whose decisions fall within the Supreme Court's appellate power under Article III or the Judiciary Act of 1789. The opinion emphasized that the Court's jurisdiction is strictly limited by Congress to cases in law or equity, and that review of such military actions is unavailable absent specific statutory authorization.
The case concerns Myra Clark Gaines's efforts to establish a lost 1813 holographic will by her father Daniel Clark, which acknowledged her as his legitimate daughter and left her his substantial estate, in the face of competing claims by executors and purchasers under an earlier will. After five prior appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed new evidence, including a Louisiana Supreme Court decree probating the 1813 will, witness testimony about its contents and Clark's statements, and facts regarding Clark's relationship with Gaines's mother. The majority opinion, delivered by Justice Wayne, recognizes the will as valid and probated, subject to future contests, based on the sufficiency of proof under Louisiana civil code standards for a lost olographic will and updated findings on legitimacy, differing from an earlier ruling due to additional testimony. Dissenting justices disagreed with both the legal standards applied and the factual conclusions regarding the will's proof and the parties' conduct.
The case concerned the validity of bonds issued by Butler County, Pennsylvania, commissioners to subscribe to the capital stock of the Northwestern Railroad Company under an 1853 state act. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the county commissioners had legal authority to issue the bonds and pledge the county's credit for payment. It further determined that the bonds were binding even though signed by only two of the three commissioners, as a majority suffices under the governing statutes. The reasoning relied on the explicit provisions of the 1853 act authorizing subscriptions and payments by bonds, along with earlier laws allowing a majority of commissioners to act for the county.
The case involved a challenge by relatives of testator Charles McMicken to the validity of devises and bequests in his will leaving property to the city of Cincinnati in trust to establish and maintain two colleges for white boys and girls, with instructions for Protestant Bible use, preferences for certain applicants including the testator's relations, and use of any surplus to support poor white orphans. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the bill seeking to set aside the provisions. The court reasoned that the gifts were valid charitable trusts under equity principles from the statute of Elizabeth as adopted in Ohio, that the city had capacity to take and administer them, that the non-alienation clause created only a permitted perpetuity for charitable purposes, and that the beneficiaries and purposes were sufficiently certain for enforcement without further state legislation.
