IN RE MCCAULEY, PETITIONER, 8 ORIGINAL. IN RE LUSBY, PETITIONER, 10 ORIGINAL
IN RE MCCAULEY, PETITIONER, 8 ORIGINAL. IN RE LUSBY, PETITIONER, 10 ORIGINAL
165 U.S. 538
Supreme Court of the United States (1897)
Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 41 L. Ed. 817 · 17 S. Ct. 995 · 1897 U.S. LEXIS 1994 · SCDB 1896-277
Cited by 87 cases
Opinion of the Court
The Chief Justice:
These are petitions for habeas corpus to discharge petitioners from confinement on convictions under the oleomargarine law on the ground of -the unconstitutionality of that enactment. So far as that question is concerned, it is conceded that the records are substantially the same as the record in Kol-' lock's case just decided, and the applications must be disposed of in the same way.
Writs denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (42 total)
-
Sommers v. Apalachicola N. R.R. Co., 75 Fla. 159 (Fla. 1918)…erest of the stockholders not to be subject to risks which they have never undertaken; and above all, the interest of the public that the corporation shall not transcend the powers conferred upon it by law.” McCormick v. Market Nat. Bank of Chicago, 165 U. S. 538, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 433; Madison and Indianapolis Railroad Company and Peru and Indianopolis Railroad Company, 21 How. (U. S.) 441; Pittsburg, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Keokuk & Hamilton Bridge Co., 131 U. S. 371, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 770; Central Transporta…
-
ST. Louis v. Taylor, 210 U.S. 281 (U.S. 1908)…ate courts. The question, therefore, precisely stated, is whether it was a claim of a right or immunity under a statute of the United States. Recent decisions of this court remove all doubt from the answer to this question. McCormick v. Market Bank, 165 U. S. 538; California Bank v. Kennedy, 167 U. S. 362; San José Land and Water Co. v. San José Ranch Co., 189 U. S. 177; Nutt v. Knut, 200 U. S. 12; Rector v. City Deposit Bank, 200 U. S. 405; Illinois Central Railroad v. McKendree, 203 U. S. 514; Eau Claire N…
-
Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Pottorff, 291 U.S. 245 (U.S. 1934)…en though the contract has been performed; and that this conclusion cannot be circumvented by erecting an estoppel which would prevent challenging the legality of a power exercised. California Bank v. Kennedy, 167 U.S. 362; McCormick v. Market Bank, 165 U.S. 538; Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman Co., 139 U.S. 24. But even if the bank would have been es-topped from asserting lack of power, its receiver would be free to challenge the validity of the pledge. The unauthorized [*261] pledge reduced the ass…
Previewing 3 of 42 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence