Case law

Underground R. R. of New York v. City of New York

116 F. 952 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Jun 19, 1902

How could such privileges and immunities accrue to the complainants as would entitle them here to equitable relief? … No contract with the state has been established which is threatened with impairment.

United States v. Gleason

78 F. 396 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York · Jan 30, 1897

The prayer of the bill is for a decree that he was not then qualified to become a citizen of the United States; that the certificate was obtained by this false representation; that it be ordered to be surrendered by him, … and immunities of citizens in the several states.”

Goetze v. United States

103 F. 72 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Jun 14, 1900

Whether a treaty stipulation alone would be sufficient to incorporate the territory into the Union is not clearly established. … Twice before in our history have we found it necessary to qualify and postpone complete incorporation into the Union.

In re Cruikshank

54 F. 676 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Mar 6, 1893

The adjective “edible” found in this connection must be considered as a relative term qualified somewhat by the noun which follows it. … The burden was on the importer to establish the allegation of the protest that the bird pepper imported by him was not edible.

United States v. Billings

190 F. 359 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Mar 8, 1911

(5) Can the owner of a foreign-built yacht acquire immunity under an earlier treaty which will exempt him from the operation of the statute ? … But the Constitution does not declare that the law so established shall never be altered or repealed by Congress.

In re Hale

139 F. 496 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Jun 8, 1905

unless the answers would tend to establish that the witness was himself guilty.” … the effect of the immunity act of Congress of February 19, 1903, c. 708, 32 Stat. 848 [U.

United States v. Douglass

25 F. Cas. 896 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Jun 2, 1851

The court observed, that they had known no case where the right now claimed had been allowed to the prosecution; that they would not be the first to do it in a capital case, unless it was clearly established; but that, on … S.] 480, they did not feel themselves at liberty to refuse the qualified right of challenge claimed by the United States.

Miller v. Berlin

17 F. Cas. 306 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York · Jan 18, 1876

But, the adjudications of the supreme court of the United States have invested municipal bonds, issued by the officers of the municipality, with anomalous and peculiar immunities, and it is now too late to apply the ordinary … These adjudications establish two propositions, which must control this case. The first of the propositions applicable here may be stated in the language of Mr. Justice Swayne (1 Wall. [68 U.

Bowers v. Atlantic, G. & P. Co.

104 F. 887 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Nov 22, 1900

Second., The said corporation has a regular and established place of business in this district. Third. … The court is clearly of the opinion that under the act of 1897 patent suits can be brought only in the district of which the defendant is an inhabitant, or in the district where he infringes and has a regular and established

Nordlinger v. United States

115 F. 828 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · May 9, 1902

There can be no doubt that the commercial designation of an article, when clearly established, is to be considered in preference to its ordinary designation, and fixes its status for tariff purposes. … Comparing the group of witnesses called by the importer with those called by the government it is thought that the former by reason of their large business transactions and extensive knowledge were better qualified than the

Carey v. Roosevelt

81 F. 608 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Jun 28, 1897

This proposition is firmly established, and, indeed, is not: disputed. The reason is plain; the devisee 3s not in privity with the executor. … In other jurisdictions, however, the rule is clearly established that a legatee is in privity with the executor and bound by a judgment against him. In the case of First Baptist Church v. Syms, 51 N. J.

Lavin v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank

1 F. 641 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Apr 1, 1880

fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States, adopted prior to the present transaction, it is provided, among other things, that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities … This clearly is not, in itself, any knowledge of any conduct on the part of the supposed decedent.

Princess of Orange

19 F. Cas. 1336 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Jul 1, 1831

It is not inconsistent with the entire immunity of the property. … Clearly it was not intended to be an admission which would bind the property, if the secretary of the treasury refused to remit this supposed forfeiture.

Day v. New England Car Co.

7 F. Cas. 248 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Feb 15, 1854

But, in my opinion, that order was perfectly regular, and was in consonance with the provisions of both of those rules, and with the established practice of this court. … I consider this case, therefore, to be clearly within the spirit of rule 107, and of' the amendatory rule of May, 1846.

United States v. Klotz

133 F. 808 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Nov 15, 1904

The facts disclosed on the hearing before the board, however, establish that the raw silk, as imported, was, as stated in the minority opinion, intended “as a substitute for such on bobbins, and can, in every case where similar … Though it is conceded that the physical status of the raw silk still attaches to the material after winding upon tubes or cops, it nevertheless clearly appears from the evidence that the American silk throwster is deprived

United States v. Moriarity

106 F. 886 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Feb 20, 1901

Section 7 provides in this regard that: “The schedules of inquiries relating- to the products of manufacturing and mechanical establishments shall embrace (lie name and location of each establishment; character of organization … It is difficult to understand how an accusation that a return was pure invention could be more amply and clearly described.

United States v. Noelke

1 F. 426 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Mar 30, 1880

The words “offering prizes,” qualify and limit the words “similar enterprises.” … This statute clearly has many implied exceptions.

Rubber Tire Wheel Co. v. Columbia Pneumatic Wagon Wheel Co.

91 F. 978 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Dec 27, 1898

The figures indicate clearly openings according with this description, but located so that about one-half of the opening is above the outer periphery of the flanges. … Do not these elements all enter into the new combination, so that each part, qualifies every other? Obviously such is the case.

Kent v. Honsinger

167 F. 619 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York · Jan 11, 1909

The evidence establishes that the defendants wrongfully and unlawfully removed all the property of such corporation, including its books and papers, from the state of Iowa to the state of New York, where, so far as appears … Clearly all of the funds represented by 146 shares of the preferred stock, or about $5,500, is in controversy here. And in my judgment the entire fund is in controversy within the meaning of the statute.

In re Leland

15 F. Cas. 292 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · Mar 3, 1873

The sellers cannot now fall back upon any other supposed or possible agreement, qualifying the delivery, and securing to them a lien for the price. … For this reason, it was insisted, that the title of Nicol & Davidson was that of mortgagees before forfeiture, and was most clearly within the statute, and void.