Case law

Miller v. Ahrens

150 F. 644 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern West Virginia · Jan 9, 1907

The very purpose of the law, I take it, is clearly to carry out the old established public policy of preventing the acquisition by these associations of property and power so clearly set forth by Judge Tucker; and to accomplish … But, if this were not so, I think our statute (section 30, c. 54, Code [section 2322, Code 1906]) is clearly decisive of the matter.

Brandt v. Virginia Coal & Iron Co.

4 F. Cas. 26 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of West Virginia · Jan 10, 1874

This appears to me to be very clearly established by the cases that were cited at the bar, which further lay it down that where an interest and not a mere power is conferred, the absolute property is vested without any act … Clearly a devisee of a life estate could dispose of such ■ an estate without words of power added.

Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. County of Jefferson

29 F. 305 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of West Virginia · Jul 1, 1886

action was clearly so repugnant to the constitution as to violate well-known principles of construction. … Under this constitution every white citizen, 21 years old, etc., was qualified to vote.

Priddie v. Thompson

82 F. 186 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of West Virginia · Jul 28, 1897

I infer that the purpose of congfess was to promote efficiency in the public service, and the exercise of such a power was clearly within its legislative scope. … Wells, then marshal of this district, “chief office deputy marshal,” with the approval of the attorney general, and that he qualified as such officer on the 1st day of July, 1896.

Wakeman v. Thompson

40 F. 375 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of West Virginia · Nov 15, 1889

The next contention is that the plaintiffs never having qualified as executors of Burr Wakeman in this state, could not bring this suit. This position can not -be maintained. In Lewis v. … upon both points seems to be conflicting, but the weight of it strongly supports the conclusion that neither requirement of the statute was complied with, and the effort of the defendants to overthrow both provision's was clearly

National Phonograph Co. v. American Graphophone Co.

184 F. 75 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of West Virginia · Dec 19, 1910

Further than that, I think claim 6 is clearly void for the lack of co-operative relation between the several recited elements. There is no true combination but an aggregation. In Pickering v. … The so-called “Commercial Joyce apparatus" 1 am convinced was never evolved from the brain of Joyce, but that its use in the establishment of the plaintiff came after a revision of the opinion held by Mr.

Couch v. McCoy

138 F. 696 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of West Virginia · Jun 21, 1905

But while I believe this to be the law as well established by well-considered decisions of many courts, it is nevertheless true that, before an option contract can be enforced by the person holding it, it must itself be complete … Couch says, “And as soon as said paper [the option] arrives I will make investigation of your property and write you immediately on my return to Ronceverte”; showing clearly that he was not relying on any existing option

Foulk v. Gray

120 F. 156 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of West Virginia · Sep 17, 1902

They themselves are the creatures of statute, under the permissive power for their establishment provided in article 3 of the constitution of the United States, and the authority for the exercise of their powers in any given … From the logic of these clearly expressed views of the highest tribunal of the land, there is no escaping.