The case concerned a dispute over title to land used as a railroad bed and depot site, with the plaintiff bringing an ejectment action claiming ownership through a sheriff's sale enforcing a May 1858 judgment against the original railroad company. The defendants asserted superior title based on a prior October 1857 judgment lien and the resulting sheriff's sale, along with related mortgage foreclosures and corporate reorganizations. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment for the defendants. The core reasoning was that the defendants' lien was earlier in time and thus paramount, while the plaintiff's later lien and purchase did not displace it, and his equity of redemption remained unaffected; challenges to evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and the sufficiency of the evidence showed no reversible error.
This case involved a passenger injured by falling through an uncovered hatchway on a steamship traveling between Seattle and San Francisco, leading to a lawsuit in rem against the vessel in a territorial district court for damages due to negligence. The district court awarded $5,000, which was increased to $15,000 by the territorial supreme court on appeal. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decree, holding that the territorial courts had proper jurisdiction over the admiralty matter under the organic act establishing the territory, which grants them the same jurisdiction as federal circuit and district courts in cases arising under U.S. laws, and that the evidence supported the finding of negligence without contributory fault and the amount of damages awarded.
The case Parks v. Booth was a patent infringement suit brought in equity by the complainant over a reissued patent for an improvement in grain-separators consisting of inclined screens, boxes with shake-motion, and a fan air-blast spout. The Circuit Court found the patent valid, that the respondents had infringed it, and awarded the complainant damages based on a master's report. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the complainant was the original inventor, the reissued patent covered the same invention as the original, and infringement was established by comparison of the machines. The Court affirmed the finding of liability but modified the decree by disallowing non-taxable expenses and interest on profits, reducing the award to $9,992.09 plus costs.
This case concerned competing claims to land in Alabama originating from a 1710 French concession in what was then the province of Louisiana, later confirmed by Congress. The plaintiffs, tracing title from the original grantee Nicholas Baudin, sued to establish ownership of the island known as Grosse Pointe, while defendants claimed under a later congressional confirmation and patent. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment for the plaintiffs, reasoning that the early concession created a complete title protected by the treaty of cession, as the grant described the tract by natural boundaries including Fowl River and Oyster Pass, with long possession and no need for further survey, and the defendants' confirming act expressly reserved prior rights.
This case involved a salvage claim by the owners, master, and crew of the steamer Mayflower against the distressed steamer Sabine, its cargo of cotton, and the cargo consignees, after the Mayflower provided voluntary assistance when the Sabine struck a snag in the Ouachita River, took on water, and faced marine peril. The district court dismissed the libel as to the consignees on exceptions, a ruling affirmed by the circuit court, and the Supreme Court affirmed that decision. The Court held that salvage suits may proceed in rem against the saved property or in personam against the party requesting the services, but here no cargo was seized so an in rem action against it could not lie, the consignees were not properly sued as owners or possessors, and an in personam suit required proceeding against those for whose benefit the services were performed under the applicable admiralty rules. Core reasoning emphasized that success in saving the property is essential to a salvage award, that maritime liens exist independently of possession, and that the nineteenth admiralty rule governs the modes of recovery without allowing the combined in rem and in personam approach attempted against the consignees after the cargo had been delivered.
The case involved a dispute over land held in trust under an 1831 deed from Elias Fort to trustees for the benefit of Penelope W. Tefft during her life and then to her three sons as tenants in common, with later conveyances and inheritances leading to claims by Sarah S. Walden, the widow of one son, against the surviving trustee's executors. Walden sought to reform a subsequent 1848 city conveyance of a Savannah lot to the trustee, arguing it failed to properly reflect the original trust terms extending benefits to the children rather than solely the mother as a feme covert. The Supreme Court held that the complainant was entitled to relief, that the conveyance should be treated as reformed to conform to the trust deed, and that the executors as successors could convey title accordingly. Jurisdiction was proper in federal court despite some parties' citizenship because the executors were nominal and the real controversy was between diverse citizens. The lower court's decree was reversed and the case remanded to determine the complainant's share and perfect her title under state law.
