text:
Van Norden v. Morton/Opinion of the Court

The complainant filed his bill addressed to the Circuit Court sitting in chancery, alleging that he is the owner of dredge-boat No. 3, lying in the river at New Orleans; that Morton, Bliss, & Co. having obtained a judgment in the same court against the Mississippi and Mexican Gulf Ship Canal Company for over $24,000, had issued an execution on said judgment, under which the marshal had seized dredge-boat No. 3, and had advertised to sell it to satisfy the writ; that he, and not the Ship Canal Company, is the owner of the boat; that it is not liable to be taken on said execution; that the seizure has already subjected him to a loss of $5,000, and that his continued deprivation of its use will cause him much greater loss. He prays for process, that the judgment plaintiffs and Packard, the marshal, be made defendants, and enjoined from interfering with him in the possession of the boat; that he be quieted and maintained in his title and possession, and defendants decreed to pay him $5,000 aforesaid as damages. A temporary injunction was granted. Answers and a replication thereto were filed, depositions and other testimony taken. On hearing, the court dissolved the injunction and dismissed the bill.

The first question we are called to consider is, whether the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of this suit in equity.

If the case had arisen in any State where separate jurisdiction at common law and in equity was fully recognized, there could be no difficulty in answering this question in the negative.

The remedy in all times for this trespass, which is a very common one, has been by an action of replevin to take the property out of the hands of the sheriff or marshal and return it to the owner, or to leave the officer to proceed with the sale of the property and sue him or the purchaser in trespass for its value and for any incidental damage. In the one case the party whose property was wrongfully seized recovered possession of it. In the other he recovered compensation for its loss. No case has been cited to us-we presume none can be found-where equity has interfered under such circumstances. Watson v. Sutherland (5 Wall. 74) is cited by the appellant. In that case, Sutherland, the party whose goods were seized, was engaged in a successful dry-goods trade. The seizure was of all his goods, and it closed his store, and if continued would have broken up a profitable business. For this the court held that the action at law for damages could have given no adequate remedy. The equitable jurisdiction, as will be seen by an examination of the opinion of the court, rested solely on that consideration. The case, as it was, is a very close one, and its main feature is absent in the one before us. There is no reason to believe that the value of the dredge-boat would not be adequate compensation for its loss, and no such allegation is made in the bill. On the contrary, the complainant claims $5,000 damages for the loss of its use while held by the marshal.

It is said, however, that the code of Louisiana does not give an action of replevin in any case, or its equivalent, and that it does give a specific remedy for cases of this class, which, in its nature, is of an equitable character, and should be administered in the Federal courts on the equity side of the calendar.

If the first proposition were true, there would still remain an adequate remedy by an action at law for damages. But while it is true that the Louisiana code provides no process by which, in advance of a judgment as to the right of the parties, personal property can be taken from the possession of one party and delivered to the other, it does provide the remedy of sequestration, by which the possession of the property which is the subject of the litigation may be taken by order of the court and held until the right is decided. See Sequestration, Code of Practice, art. 269-283. Under these articles we see no reason why the complainant might not have brought suit and recovered the ultimate possession of his boat and damages for its detention.

The special provision for such cases as the present is found in art. 298, par. 7, of the same Code of Practice. The whole of sect. 5 is devoted to injunctions, and a careful reading of all the subdivisions shows that the word is used as applicable to cases which are in their nature of a common-law character, and that it is used as synonymous and interchangeably with prohibition. It is also authorized in some cases which with us would be undoubtedly of chancery cognizance.

We think the rule is settled in this court that whenever a new right is granted by statute, or a new remedy for violation of an old right, or whenever such rights and remedies are dependent on State statutes or acts of Congress, the jurisdiction of such cases, as between the law side and the equity side of the Federal courts, must be determined by the essential character of the case, and unless it comes within some of the recognized heads of equitable jurisdiction it must be held to belong to the other.

The case of Thompson v. Railroad Companies (6 Wall. 134) had been removed from the State court into the Circuit Court of the United States. In the latter a bill in chancery was filed and a decree rendered in favor of the complainant. On appeal, this court held that the case had no feature of equitable cognizance, and ordered it to be dismissed without prejudice. It was conceded that if the case had remained in the State court the plaintiff could have recovered.

The court said: 'The remedies in the courts of the United States are, at common law or in equity, not according to the practice of the State courts, but according to the principles of common law and equity, as distinguished and defined in that country from which we derive our knowledge of these principles. And although the forms of proceedings and practice in the State courts shall have been adopted in the circuit courts of the United States, yet the adoption of the State practice must not be understood as confounding the principles of law and equity, nor as authorizing legal and equitable claims to be blended together in one suit,' citing Robinson v. Campbell (3 Wheat. 212) and Bennett v. Butterworth (11 How. 669), to which we take leave to add Jones et al. v. McMasters (20 id. 8) and Basey v. Gallagher (20 Wall. 680).

With this criterion before us, we are of opinion that the remedy provided by the Code of Practice of Louisiana is a simple application to the court from which the writ issued to remedy the evil of an erroneous levy of the execution. It says: 'The injunction must be granted and directed against the defendant himself, in the following cases:. ..

'When the sheriff, in the execution of a judgment, has seized property not belonging to the defendant, and insists on selling the same, disregarding the opposition of him who alleges that he is the real owner, or is guilty of any other act in the execution of his office.'

Now this obviously refers to the control of the court over its own officer, in the execution of its own writs, and is as applicable to other misconduct of that officer in the execution of his official duties, as in cases of seizure of property not liable under an execution in his hands. The remedy needs no formal chancery proceeding, but a petition or motion, with notice to the sheriff, is not only all that is required, but is the most speedy and appropriate mode of obtaining relief.

This relief does not depend on any inadequacy of an action for damages or by sequestration. It is a short, summary proceeding before the court under whose authority the officer is acting, gives speedy relief, and is very analogous to the statutory remedy given in many of the Western States in similar cases to try the right of property at the instance of the party whose property is wrongfully seized. It has no element of equitable right or procedure, and as a court of chancery the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction of the case.

Although the court below dismissed the bill, it was a decision on the merits, and not for want of jurisdiction. The decree recites that the case was heard on bill, answer, replication, exhibits, and proofs, and on consideration thereof the bill was dismissed. This decree would be a bar to any other action which complainant might bring at law.

In accordance with the settled rule of this court, as shown in the case above cited, of Thompson v. Railroad Companies and Kendig v. Dean (97 U.S. 423), this decree must be reversed, and a new one entered dismissing the bill for want of jurisdiction, and without prejudice to the right of complainant to bring any action at law or other proceeding which he may be advised; and it is

So ordered.


text: Talk:Van Norden v. Morton/Opinion of the Court

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Ryan v. Railroad Company

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California.

This is a suit in equity brought by Ryan to enjoin and restrain the Central Pacific Railroad Company from relying upon or using as evidence a patent issued to it by the United States for a certain tract of land in California.

The company is successor to the California and Oregon Railroad Company, to which, in aid of the construction of a railroad, Congress granted land by an act approved July 25, 1866 (14 Stat. 239), entitled 'An Act granting lands to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from the Central Pacific Railroad, in California, to Portland, in Oregon,' the second section whereof is set out in the opinion of the court.

The land in controversy is situated within the indemnity or ten-mile limits beyond the alternate sections first named in the act, and at its date was within the exterior boundaries of a certain Mexican claim known as the Manuel Diaz grant, which was finally rejected as invalid, March 3, 1873.

Oct. 30, 1874, the company finding that there were not sufficient odd-numbered sections within the limits of its grant, not otherwise granted, &c., to make the quantity to which it was entitled, made selection of the land in controversy, the same being then public land, and applied for a patent therefor, in all respects in the manner provided by said act. This selection was examined by the register and receiver of the proper land-office, and it appearing to them that there were not sufficient alternate sections within the twenty-mile limits of the railroad grant, not otherwise granted, &c., to satisfy the grant, they, Dec. 26, 1874, approved the selection as indemnity for a portion of the lands so lost, and thereafter forwarded the same to the Commissioner of the General Land-Office. The selection was thereupon approved by the Secretary of the Interior, and a patent was issued to the company, March 17, 1875.

Ryan being in all respects qualified to avail himself of the provisions of an act of Congress, entitled 'An Act to secure homesteads to actual settlers on the public domain,' approved May 20, 1862 (12 Stat. 392), filed an application, July 14, 1876, accompanied by his affidavit, as required by said act, in the proper land-office, to be allowed to enter as a homestead the quarter-section so selected by, and patented to, the company; and he thereupon paid the lawful fees, and received a duplicate receipt from the register and receiver therefor. He subsequently built a house thereon, and, Nov. 4, 1876, moved with his family into said house, where he continued to reside until the commencement of this suit. He alleges that the said patent is held and asserted by the company in hostility to his title.

The court dismissed the bill, and Ryan appealed here.

Mr. John Currey for the appellant.

The Attorney-General for the United States.

If the right of the company to land within the indemnity limits attached at the same time as its right to the odd-numbered sections within the original limits, it is conceded by the counsel for the appellee that the rule in Newhall v. Sanger (92 U.S. 761) is applicable to this case, and, if adhered to, must govern its decision.

The records of the Department of the Interior establish that the order withdrawing the lands from sale or other disposal embraced those within the granted and the indemnity limits alike; and the question recurs, whether that order was authorized and required by the act under which the appellee claims.

The grant was in praesenti, and acquired precision upon the definite location of the road. Railroad Company v. Smith, 9 Wall. 95; Schulenberg v. Harriman, 21 id. 44; ''Leavenworth, &c. Railroad Co. v. United States'', 92 U.S. 733. Upon such location, it was made the duty of the Secretary of the Interior to order a withdrawal from sale of the public lands granted 'within the limits before specified.' What were they? Manifestly thirty miles on each side of said line of road. The language of the act is 'twenty alternate sections per mile (ten on each side) of said railroad line.' Ten alternate sections on either side of said road could only be found by extending over a space of twenty miles.

This is the first limit mentioned in the act.

If the twenty alternate sections were not found within that limit, then the company had the right to select other lands in lieu of those 'sold, reserved, occupied by homestead settlers, pre-empted, or otherwise disposed of' within the next ten miles.

This is the second limit mentioned in the act.

The act, however, requires the withdrawal 'within the limits before specified,' the plural being used, evidently, to include both limits. Where the word 'limits' occurs in the preceding part of the second section, it means the twenty miles on each side of the road; but in the clause 'within the limits before specified,' it refers to the entire limits of the grant.

The order of withdrawal, therefore, properly embraced both the twenty and the ten mile limits. Any other manner would not have been in accordance with the terms of the act. Certainly Congress would not have required the lands within the indemnity limits to be withdrawn, if they were not included in the grant.

The grant was of ten sections per mile on each side of the road, provided, at the time of its definite location, the United States owned that quantity within thirty miles of either side thereof. It is urged by the appellee that the grant acquired precision upon such location, only as to the lands included within what is termed the granted limits. This is clearly incorrect. Every alternate section of public land within the indemnity limits, so called, was, by the order of withdrawal, subject to the grant. By such location, and that order, the company acquired a vested right in each section, viz. a right to a patent, provided any section of land or a part thereof, within the first limits mentioned, was lost by any of the ways specified in the act.

While it is true that no title to land within the indemnity limits passed absolutely upon such location, it is also true that the right to acquire title to the alternate sections there situate was granted. Upon the order of withdrawal, the right of the United States to dispose of them ceased. The title within those limits is acquired by virtue not of the selection, but of the grant, although that is made definite by the selection. The title to public lands can only be derived under a general or a special act of Congress. Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Pet. 498; Bragnell v. Broderick, id. 436.

Under the ruling of the Department of the Interior the grant to the company attached at the same time to all the odd-numbered sections of public land within the granted and the indemnity limits.

This construction, although not binding upon this court, is entitled to great respect (United States v. Dickson, 15 Pet. 141); and we submit that having received the benefit of it, and thereby obtained thousands of acres of valuable land which otherwise would have been disposed of by the government, while thousands of other acres have been, and still are, withheld from disposal, the company should not be permitted now to question the correctness of such construction.

Mr. S. W. Sanderson, contra.

MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Ryan v. Railroad Company


text: Talk:Ryan v. Railroad Company

title: Talk:Ryan v. Railroad Company


text:
Ryan v. Railroad Company/Opinion of the Court

After this case was submitted to the court upon printed arguments by the counsel of the parties, the Attorney-General expressed a wish to be heard in behalf of the United States, and an oral argument was thereupon ordered. The case was argued in that way, fully and ably, by that officer and by the counsel for the appellee, and I am directed now to deliver the opinion of the court.

There is no controversy about the facts.

By the act of Congress of July 25, 1866, Congress granted certain lands to the California and Oregon Railroad Company. The appellee claims under that grantee, and has succeeded to its rights. At the date of the act there was pending a claim for the confirmation of a Mexican grant, which embraced within its boundaries the premises in controversy between these parties. The appellant insists that he has a paramount title, not under, but by reason of this claim, as will hereafter appear.

The second section of the act referred to is as follows:--

'SECT. 2. And be it further enacted, that there be, and hereby is, granted to the said companies, their successors and assigns, for the purpose of aiding in the construction of said railroad and telegraph line, and to secure the safe and speedy transportation of the mails, troops, munitions of war, and public stores, over the line of said railroad, every alternate section of public land, not mineral, designated by odd numbers, to the amount of twenty alternate sections per mile (ten on each side) of said railroad line; and when any of said alternate sections, or parts of sections, shall be found to have been granted, sold, reserved, occupied by homestead settlers, pre-empted or otherwise disposed of, other lands, designated as aforesaid, shall be selected by said companies in lieu thereof, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, in alternate sections designated by odd numbers as aforesaid, nearest to and not more than ten miles beyond the limits of the said first-named alternate sections,' &c. 14 Stat. 239.

Under this statute, when the road was located and the maps were made, the right of the company to the odd sections first named became ipso facto fixed and absolute. With respect to the 'lieu lands,' as they are called, the right was only a float, and attached to no specific tracts until the selection was actually made in the manner prescribed.

On the 3d of March, 1873, the alleged Mexican grant was declared invalid by this court and finally rejected. On the 30th of October, 1874, it was found there was not enough of the alternate odd sections within the primary limits to satisfy the grant to the railroad company. On that day the appellee selected the land in question. Though not within them, it was within the indemnity limits prescribed in the act, and was intended in so far to supply the deficiency within the former. The selection was approved by the local land-officers on the 26th of December, 1874. This approval was confirmed by the Secretary of the Interior, and a patent in due form was issued to the appellee on the 17th of March, 1875. At the time of the selection the premises were public land. The Mexican claim had been rejected by this court more than a year and a half before, and the land was not within any exception expressed or implied in the act. Afterwards, on the 14th of July, 1876, the appellant being in all respects qualified, filed an application in due form to be allowed to enter the land in question under the homestead act of 1862. He paid the proper fees and received a duplicate receipt from the register and receiver of the land-office of the district. He filed this bill to restrain the appellee from availing itself of the patent, upon the ground that the land was not subject to selection in lieu of the deficit of odd sections within the twenty-mile limits specifically granted by the act.

After this plain statement of the case, it is difficult to imagine any defeet that can exist in the title of the appellee, or any right, legal or equitable, that the appellant can have.

But it is said the case is within the principle established in Newhall v. Sanger (92 U.S. 761), and must be controlled by that adjudication. This is the sole objection to the appellee's title, and it is founded in a mistake. The two cases are distinguishable by a broad line of demarcation.

In the former case, the lands covered by the false Mexican claim were situated within the limits of the territory where the right of the company attached to the designated odd sections granted when the road was located and the requisite maps were made. At that time the claim was in litigation, and sub judice. The court held that under these circumstances the premises were not 'public land,' within the meaning of the law, and could not become such until the title of the government was vindicated by the defeat of the claim, and that the patent issued to the railroad company was, therefore, void.

After the Mexican claim had been disposed of and before a new appropriation was made or attempted to be made by the company, the junior patent was issued to another party, and it was held that he had a valid title. The Mexican claim was finally rejected by this court on the 13th of February, 1865. It was insisted by the company that the judgment should be held to relate back to the first day of the term, so as to disembarrass the title of the claim as of that date. This was refused. The court said, 'to antedate the rejection of a claim so as to render operative a grant which would be otherwise without effect, does not promote the ends of justice, and cannot be sanctioned.' It was admitted by clear implication that if the lands had been thus disembarrassed at the date of the grant, or their withdrawal from sale, the elder patent would have been valid.

Again, speaking of lands embraced in such a claim the court says expressly, 'they were regarded as forming a part of our public domain only after the claim covering them had been finally rejected.'. . . 'They then became public in the just meaning of that term, and were subject to the disposing power of Congress.'

Here the land was not a part of the alternate odd sections specifically granted. It was not within the limits of that territory. There, there was a deficiency.

It was within the secondary or indemnity territory where that deficiency was to be supplied. The railroad company had not and could not have any claim to it until specially selected, as it was, for that purpose. It was taken to held satisfy the grant to the extent that the odd sections originally given failed to meet its requirements. When so selected there was no Mexican or other claim impending over it. It had ceased to be sub judice, and was no longer in litigation. It was as much 'public land' as any other part of the national domain. The patent gave the same title to the appellee that a like patent for any other public land would have given to any other party. The Mexican claim when condemned lost its vitality. From that time, as regards the future, it ceased to be a factor to be considered, and was in all respects as if it had never existed. In this state of things the appellee acquired its title, and that title is indefeasible.

Newhall v. Sanger applies only where the adverse claim is undisposed of when the grant would otherwise take effect. It has no application as to the future after the claim has ceased to exist.

Decree affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN concurred in the judgment, because Ryan, upon the face of his bill, was not entitled to any relief from a court of equity. The bill should have been dismissed without any consideration of the merits of the case, about which he expressed no opinion.


text: Talk:Ryan v. Railroad Company/Opinion of the Court


text:
Hale v. Frost

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Iowa.

Between 1867 and 1873, The Burlington, Cedar Rapids, and Minnesota Railway Company, a corporation duly organized under the laws of Iowa, built and put in operation its main line from Burlington, via Cedar Rapids, to Plymouth; the Pacific Division, extending west from the main line at Vinton; the Muscatine Division, extending from Muscatine west across the main line; and the Milwaukee Extension, extending from the main line near Cedar Rapids to Postville. The main line was mortgaged May, 1869; the Pacific Division, September, 1871; the Milwaukee Extension, January, 1872; and the Muscatine Division, July, 1872. The mortgages were made to trustees to secure the bonds of the company, and covered the road, all rights of way, rolling-stock, and equipment; all implements, fuel, and materials for the construction, operating, repairing, or replacing the road or any of its branches; and also all franchises connecting with or relating to the road, which were then held or might thereafter be acquired by the company; and also all rights, claims, and benefits in and to all leases, contracts, and agreements then made or which might thereafter be made with any parties whomsoever, together with all and singular the tenements and appurtenances thereunto belonging, and the reversions, remainders, tolls, incomes, rents, issues, and profits thereof, and also all the estates, rights, titles, and interests whatsoever, as well at law as in equity, of the company. The mortgages were authorized by statute, and were in due time and in the proper offices recorded.

The company, Nov. 1, 1873, made default in paying interest due for the preceding six months. The bondholders funded their interest coupons due respectively at that date and at six and twelve months next thereafter, and allowed the company to retain the possession of the road. The company, May 1, 1875, again made default in the payment of interest; and on the 19th of that month the trustees filed a bill against the company, to foreclose the several mortgages. A receiver was thereupon appointed by the court, who took immediate possession of the road and its branches. The company has never since had possession of them, or received any of the rents or profits thereof.

When the company first made default in the payment of interest, there was a 'floating debt' of about $1,600,000, for equipment, construction, repairs, wages, taxes, &c. Between Nov. 1, 1873, and May 1, 1875, the gross earnings of the main line and branches were about $1,772,249.74; and the net earnings during the same time, over and above operating expenses, taxes, &c., were about $550,000, all of which were disbursed in the payment of the 'floating debt.' The company owed, Nov. 1, 1873, for back wages to employes, taxes, and current supplies then on hand and subsequently used by it, about the sum of $150,000. When the receiver was appointed, May 19, 1875, there was due for back wages to employes, $81,250.02, and for current supplies, about $60,000. The records of the court below show that while the railway and branches were under his control their net earnings, over all operating expenses, for eight and one-third months, were $337,540.35.

The Union Car-Spring Manufacturing Company, Dec. 6, 1875, and the firm of Hale, Ayer, & Co., Aug. 18, 1875, intervened and filed their respective petitions. Each prayed for an order upon the receiver to pay its claim.

The facts were agreed upon, and it appears therefrom that the car company sold and delivered to the railway company during the month of April and the last of March, 1875, carsprings and spirals of the value of $469.42, which the receiver after his appointment continued to use, and for which nothing had been paid; that Hale, Ayer, & Co., Aug. 1 and 10, 1873, had an accounting and settlement with the railway company, in which it appeared that it was then indebted to them, including interest, in the sum of $21,738.92.

At sundry times and in various amounts the sum of $12,295.74 was paid on account of the notes given in settlement of said indebtedness of $21,738.92, of which $5,919.25 was for supplies to machinery department, $14,944.24 for materials for construction purposes, and $875.43 interest.

Another settlement was made Jan. 20, 1874, for $6,955.63 due from said company to them, being $4,422.99 for invoices of supplies for machinery department, $2,208.75 for material for construction purposes, and $323.89 interest.

The company's note for $1,552.78, given to them for supplies for machinery department in August, 1872, matured Feb. 13, 1874, and the total amount due them was $17,951.59, for which they held the overdue notes of the company. No mechanic's lien was claimed. The judges below were opposed in opinion upon the following points claimed by the interveners:--

1. That the railway mortgage is a prior lien only upon the net earnings of the road, after the payment of all the operating expenses, while the road is in the possession of the company.

2. That after the default in the payment of the interest Nov. 1, 1873, the fact that the mortgagees funded their coupons and left the company in possession of the road constituted the company their agent and trustee in equity, and they are now estopped from objecting to the payment from the earnings of the road of all legitimate debts contracted by the company for operating expenses.

3. That the net earnings of the road, while in the possession of the court, and operated by its receiver, are not necessarily and exclusively the property of the mortgagees, but are subject to the disposal of the Chancellor in the payment of claims which have superior equities, if such shall be found to exist, and that these intervening petitioners' claims have superior equities to those of the mortgagees.

The petitions were dismissed, and the interveners appealed here.

Mr. Charles A. Clark and Mr. N. M. Hubbard for the appellants.

Mr. James Grant for the appellee.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE announced the decision of the court.

title: Hale v. Frost


text: Talk:Hale v. Frost

title: Talk:Hale v. Frost


text:
Hale v. Frost/Opinion of the Court

The first question certified in this case is answered in the affirmative, upon the authority of Fosdick v. Schall, supra, p. 235.

The third question is answered in the same way upon the same authority. The Union Car-Spring Manufacturing Company is entitled to payment in full, and Hale, Ayer, & Co. to payment of so much of their claim only as is for supplies to the machinery department. There is nothing in the case to show any special equities in their favor in respect to that part of their account which is for material for construction purposes.

An answer to the second question is unnecessary.

The several decrees appealed from will be reversed, and the cause remanded with instructions to enter decrees in favor of the appellants for the amount due them respectively from the fund in court, upon the principles settled by the answers which are given to the questions certified; and it is

So ordered.

title: Hale v. Frost/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Hale v. Frost/Opinion of the Court

title: Talk:Hale v. Frost/Opinion of the Court


text:
User:Geo Swan/Atta Mohammad Noor

Political Landscape
Although appointed in 2004 and given high levels of autonomy by President Hamid Karzai, Governor Atta Mohammad Noor was the only provincial governor to openly support Karzai’s rival, Abdullah Abdullah, in the August 2009 election. This opposition has given rise to concerns of violence if the central government decides to attempt to reign in Atta’s power. The leaders of Balkh’s two other primary political parties supported Karzai.:

Political Leaders
Governor General Atta Mohammad Noor: Atta Noor is a powerful Tajik and former commander of Rabbani’s Jamiat-i Islami tanzim. He vehemently fought against the Taliban regime and served as the Northern Alliance’s top commander in the Balkh area. Atta Mohammad has served as the Governor of Balkh since 2004 and continues to have a tense relationship with President Hamid Karzai and rival power-broker General Abdul Rashid Dostum (Uzbek). Atta Noor is credited for maintaining political control and economic development and security for Balkh province including its largest city, Mazar-i-Sharif.

title: User:Geo Swan/Atta Mohammad Noor


text:
Hartman v. Bean

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. T. W. Cotzhausen for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Smith, contra.

MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Hartman v. Bean


text: Talk:Hartman v. Bean

title: Talk:Hartman v. Bean


text:
Hartman v. Bean/Opinion of the Court

High wines produced by distillation, like other distilled spirits when removed from the place where the same were distilled, if not deposited in a bonded warehouse, as required by law, become liable to the same internal-revenue tax as that prescribed to be paid by the distiller, owner, or person in possession thereof before the same is removed from the bonded warehouse; and the provision is, that when the commissioner obtains knowledge that such distilled spirits have been so removed, and that the same are not deposited in the bonded warehouse, it is made his duty to assess the distiller for the amount, and to return the assessment to the collector, who is directed to demand payment of the tax; and if the distiller neglects and refuses to pay the assessment, the requirement is that the collector shall proceed to collect the same by distraint. Rev. Stat., sects. 3251, 3253.

Certain high wines which the plaintiff alleges that he owned, and which he claims that he purchased of the distiller, were seized and sold by the defendants, under and by virtue of a warrant od distraint for the collection of certain internal-revenue taxes assessed against the distiller of the same, of whom plaintiff made his purchase. Sufficient appears to show that the plaintiff is, and for a number of years has been, engaged in business as a rectifier of such wines and as a wholesale dealer in liquors, and that the principal defendant is the collector of internal revenue for the district, the other being his deputy.

Liquors of the kind, when lawfully removed from the distillery and deposited in a warehouse, are frequently sold by the distiller subject to tax, but while they remain in the warehouse they are subject to the regulations prescribed by the act of Congress. Such distillers are required, on the first day of each month, or within five days thereafter, to render, under oath, to the collector of the district, an account in duplicate, taken from their books, stating the quantity and kind of materials used for the production of spirits each day, and the number of wine gallons of spirits produced and placed in warehouse.

Accounts of the kind in duplicate are required; and it is made the duty of the collector to transmit one of the same to the commissioner, and on the receipt of the return the commissioner is directed in each month to inquire and determine whether the distiller has accounted for all the grain or molasses used and the spirits produced by him in the preceding month.

Even if the commissioner is satisfied that the distiller has reported all the spirits produced by him, still if the quantity reported is less than eighty per centum of the producing capacity of the distillery, he is required by law to make an assessment for such deficiency at the rate of ninety cents for every proof gallon; but if the commissioner finds that the distiller has not accounted for all the spirits produced by him, the act of Congress directs that he shall, from all the evidence he can obtain, determine what quantity of spirits was actually produced by such distiller, and that an assessment shall be made for the difference between the quantity reported and the quantity shown to have been actually produced, at the rate of ninety cents for every proof gallon, the same as if the true quantity had been reported. Id., sects. 3307, 3309.

Much discussion of the facts is unnecessary, as there is no conflict in the evidence as reported in the bill of exceptions.

On the 8th of May, 1875, the plaintiff in good faith purchased the high wines mentioned in the declaration of the distiller. They had been produced at the distillery of the seller, and were regularly deposited in the bonded warehouse, the tax not having been paid; and it appears that the purchaser paid for the spirits twenty-six cents for each proof gallon, subject to tax. Purchases of the kind had frequently been made by the plaintiff; and the bill of exception states that it is the custom to make such purchases subject to tax, the purchaser withdrawing the same from time to time on payment of tax, as fast as the spirits are wanted in his business. Written notice of the sale and purchase was given to the collector on the same day, and the statement is that the notice has ever since remained on file in his office.

Irregularity in the transaction is not suggested; and it appears that the plaintiff, not needing the high wines for immediate use in his business, allowed the same to remain in the bonded warehouse, which constituted a part of the distillery premises where the wines had been manufactured, he, the purchaser, not making any application to remove or withdraw the same until after the tax in question had been assessed, as required by the internal-revenue act of Congress.

Prior to such application, to wit, on the 10th of June subsequent to the purchase by the plaintiff, the commissioner, pursuant to the provision contained in the section of the Revised Statutes last above cited, assessed the distiller and vendor of the plaintiff the sum of $2,857.68 as an internal-revenue tax on 4,082 38/100 proof gallons of high wines distilled by the said distiller at his said distillery between the 6th of January and the 8th of March of the same year the purchase of the distilled spirits was made by the plaintiff.

Due notice in writing of the tax and demand of payment were made by the collector of the district, and the bill of exceptions states that the distiller wholly neglected and refused to make the payment. Assessment being duly made and payment being refused, the collector, pursuant to law, issued his warrant of distraint, and the deputy collector seized and sold the property to make the money. Immediate redress was sought by the plaintiff through the present action of trover, commenced in the State court. Service having been made, the defendants appeared, and on their motion the cause was removed into the Circuit Court, where the answer of the defendants was filed. Both parties appeared in the Circuit Court, and having waived a jury, they submitted the cause to the determination of the court. Hearing was had; and the court being of the opinion that in point of law there was a lien on the high wines for the taxes assessed by the commissioner, under the provision before referred to, held that the action could not be maintained, and that the assessment of the tax and the sale of the spirits under the warrant of distress were valid. Judgment being rendered for the defendants, the plaintiff removed the cause into this court, and assigns for error that the Circuit Court erred in the conclusions of law set forth in the transcript, he, the plaintiff, insisting that the high wines were neither subject to a lien for the tax nor to seizure under the warrant of distraint, and that the withholding and sale of the same constituted a conversion.

Formal application to withdraw the high wines from the bonded warehouse was made on the 14th of July subsequent to the assessment, and the bill of exceptions shows that on that day the plaintiff caused the statements and certificates required by law to be made out for that purpose, and that he tendered to the collector the tax on the same, meaning the tax assessed on the quantities reported by the distiller; but the leave to withdraw was refused, because the corrected assessment by the commissioner had previously been made for the difference between the quantity reported and the quantity shown to have been actually produced.

Actual seizure of the high wines was made by the deputy collector on the 8th of the same month, and it appears that he advertised the same for sale on the same day. Prior to the sale, to wit, July 22, the plaintiff tendered to the collector the amount of the tax admitted to be due and owing on the said high wines, at the rate of ninety cents per proof gallon, demanded possession thereof, and that the levy be released and the sale abandoned; but the defendants refused to release the property, and the same was sold on the following day under the warrant of distress and pursuant to the antecedent advertisement. But such a tender, even if it included the corrected assessment, could not benefit the plaintiff, as it did not cover either interest or penalty for the non-payment.

Beyond all question, the corrected assessment made was fully authorized by the act of Congress, as the same section provides that all assessments made under that section shall be a lien on all distilled spirits, the distillery premises, the distillery used for distilling the same, the stills, vessels, fixtures, and tools therein, the tract of land whereon the said distillery is located, and any building thereon, from the time such assessment is made until the same shall have been paid and discharged. Rev. Stat., sect. 3309.

Argument to show that that provision secures a lien upon the distilled spirits as security for the payment of the tax is quite unnecessary, as the language of the act is express to that effect; and sect. 3188 also provides that in case of such neglect or refusal the collector may levy, or by warrant may authorize a deputy collector to levy, upon all property and rights to property, except such as are exempt by the preceding section, belonging to such person or on which the said lien exists, for the payment of the sum due with interest, and penalty for non-payment.

Nothing can be plainer in legal decision than the proposition that the lien in such a case attaches to the distillery, the distilled spirits, and to the real and personal property used in connection with the distillery, and that it may be enforced against the distilled spirits at any time before the purchaser of the same withdraws the spirits from the bonded warehouse, which is all that is necessary to decide in the case before the court. Dobbins Distillery v. United States, 96 U.S. 401.

Concede that the owner of the distilled spirits may sell the same while the spirits are deposited in the bonded warehouse, still his sale must be regarded as subject to the tax, as the purchase was in this case, which means that the purchaser takes the property subject to the lien in favor of the United States that is created by the act of Congress; nor is it any hardship upon the purchaser, as he as well as the distiller knows that the act of Congress makes it the duty of the commissioner to examine the monthly returns of the distiller, and that if he finds that the distiller has not accounted for all the spirits produced, he must assess the delinquent for the excess produced beyond the amount reported.

Viewed in the light of that suggestion, it is clear that the purchaser has no just ground of complaint, as he knew that the spirits purchased under such circumstances were subject to such a corrected tax, and that the corrected assessment as well as that levied pursuant to the report of the distiller becomes a lien upon the high wines deposited in the bonded warehouse.

Judgment affirmed.

title: Hartman v. Bean/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Hartman v. Bean/Opinion of the Court


text:
Smith v. Railroad Company

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. Thomas G. Frost for the appellant.

Mr. J. E. McKeighan, contra.

MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Smith v. Railroad Company


text: Talk:Smith v. Railroad Company

title: Talk:Smith v. Railroad Company


text:
Smith v. Railroad Company/Opinion of the Court

This case was decided by the court below upon demurrer to the amended bill of the appellant. The case made by that bill, so far as it is necessary to state it, may be embodied in a few words.

The appellant and Dunn, under the name of Smith & Co., on the 6th of June, 1871, contracted with a corporation then known as the Fort Scott and Allen County Railroad Company, afterwards the Fort Scott, Humboldt, and Western Railroad Company, to grade the line of its roadway, extending from Fort Scott, in Kansas, to Humboldt City, in the same State, and to build all the necessary bridges and culverts, and to complete the work by the 1st of July, 1872.

The railroad company, in consideration of the work to be done, agreed to pay and deliver to Smith & Co. certain municipal bonds, amounting, according to their face value, to $275,000; to wit, $125,000 in the bonds of Bourbon County, $25,000 in the bonds of Humboldt City, $75,000 in the bonds of Humboldt Township, $25,000 in the bonds of Salem Township, and $25,000 in the bonds of Elsmore Township. Dunn assigned his interest in the contract to Smith. The latter did all the work before the time specified. On the 6th of June, 1872, the railroad company passed a resolution accepting the work and acknowledging the fulfilment of the contract.

The bonds of Humboldt Township and Humboldt City, amounting together to $100,000, have been delivered to Smith pursuant to the contract. The bonds of Bourbon County and those of Salem Township and of Elsmore Township have not been delivered.

On the 24th of July, 1869, the commissioners of Bourbon County passed a resolution calling for an election on the 24th of August following, under a statute of Kansas, to decide the question whether the county should subscribe $150,000 to the capital stock of any railroad company then or thereafter organized to construct a railroad on the line specified in the contract of Smith & Co. The election was accordingly held at the time appointed. The result was in favor of the subscription. On the 13th, of October, 1870, the Fort Scott and Allen County Railroad Company was duly organized. On the 13th of October, 1871, the commissioners of Bourbon County passed a resolution authorizing Joseph L. Emert to subscribe for $150,000 of the stock. The subscription was made accordingly. The county from time to time voted upon the stock. The commissioners resolved to prepare, and in part to execute, the bonds as soon as the necessary lithographing could be finished. They promised Smith promptly to deliver them upon the completion of the work within the contract time They were present when the contract was entered into, and made the same promise to Smith & Co. But for their repeated assurances to this effect, and the reliance of both Smith and Dunn upon their good faith, the work would not have proceeded, and would not have been done.

The county bonds have not been issued, and new and burdensome terms have been imposed as conditions of that result. The railroad company is hopelessly insolvent. There is no remedy left to the appellant but to procure the bonds still in arrear. The prayer of the bill is that the railroad company be decreed to assign its claim for the bonds of Humboldt County to the complainant; that the county commissioners be decreed to issue them, and that process issue against the Fort Scott, Humboldt, and Western Railroad Company (formerly the Fort Scott and Allen County Railway Company), and against the county commissioners of Bourbon County and against that county.

The only question presented for our determination is whether the demurrer was properly sustained.

Our judgment will be confined to a single point.

There is no privity between the county of Bourbon and the complainant. There has been no assignment, legal or equitable, to him by the railroad company of its claim against the county. If there had been an assignment, the Circuit Court could not have taken jurisdiction of the case, because the assignor, if there had been no assignment, could not have maintained a suit upon the thing assigned in that forum. Rev. Stat. 109; Sere v. Pitot, 6 Cranch, 332. The relationship of the complainant to the company is that he is its creditor while the county is assumed to be, and perhaps is, its debtor. The complainant has no lien upon the fund he is seeking to reach. His case is, therefore, a common creditor's bill,-nothing more and nothing less. There is no statutory provision in Kansas touching such bills. The distinction there between legal and equitable remedies has been abolished. 2 Dasslor's Statutes of Kansas, p. 643, sect. 3230.

The law of procedure there recognizes but two forms of action: one is designated a civil, the other a criminal action. The former relates to the assertion of civil rights by suit; the latter, to criminal prosecutions. The Circuit Court of the United States of that district has, nevertheless, full equity jurisdiction. The Federal courts have it to the same extent in all the States, and State legislation cannot affect it. Boyle v. Zacharie, 9 Pet. 648. The States, however, may create equitable rights, which those courts will enforce where there is jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject-matter. Clark v. Smith, 13 id. 195; Ex parte McNeil, 13 Wall. 236. This bill, as regards this point, was well filed in the court to which it was addressed. But nothing is better settled than that such a bill must be preceded by a judgment at law establishing the measure and validity of the demand of the complainant for which he seeks satisfaction in chancery. Wiggins v. Armstrong, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) Ch. 144; Hendricks v. Robinson, id. 296; Greenway v. Thomas, 14 Ill. 271; Mizzel v. Herbert, 12 Miss. (Smed. & M.) 550; Gorton v. Massey, 12 Minn. 147; Skele v. Stanwood, 33 Me. 309; Sexton v. Wheaton, 1 Am. Lead. Cas. (5th ed.) 59.

There are exceptions to this rule, but they do not affect its application to the case in hand. It is, therefore, unnecessary to pursue the subject further.

Decree affirmed.


text: Talk:Smith v. Railroad Company/Opinion of the Court


text:
Union Pacific Railroad Company v. United States (99 U.S. 402)

APPEAL from the Court of Claims.

This is a suit by the Union Pacific Railroad Company to recover compensation for services rendered to the United States prior to 1874, and during a portion of that year 1874, and the whole of the year 1875. A counter-claim is set up for five per cent of the net earnings of the company, under the provision of the sixth section of the act of July, 1, 1862 (12 Stat. 489), that 'after the said road is completed, until said bonds and interest are paid, at least five per centum of the net earnings of said road shall also be annually applied to the payment thereof.' The United States alleges that the road was completed on the 6th of November, 1869, and that since that time a large amount of net earnings has been realized by the company, which it has failed to pay or apply to the said bonds. The company denies this, and alleges that its road was not finished until Oct. 1, 1874, and that it has not realized any net earnings in any year, since either the 6th of November, 1869, or the 1st of October, 1874; and denies that it was its duty to pay to the United States annually any money whatever, as and for five per cent upon its net earnings, to be applied in the aforesaid.

The Court of Claims decided that the road was completed on the 6th of November, 1869, and that the company did, after that period, annually realize net earnings to a large amount, for the six years from Nov. 6, 1869, to Nov. 6, 1875, amounting in the aggregate to the sum of $28,052,045.67; and that five per cent thereof, to wit, the sum of $1,402,602.28, was payable to the government; whilst one-half of the compensation due for the services rendered by the company to the government, for the period covered by the petition, amounted to only $593,627.10; and, therefore, that the government was entitled to recover from the company the difference between these two sums, amounting to the sum of $808,975.18. From this judgment the company appealed.

So much of the eighteenth finding by the Court of Claims as is referred to and commented on in the opinion of the court is as follows:--

A.-EARNINGS.

Nov. 6, 1869, to Nov. 6, 1870, to  Nov. 6,1871, to

Nov. 5, 1870. Nov. 5, 1871. Nov. 5, 1872.

7. Company freight earnings $482,387.43  $362,414.56    $403,591.

12. Miscellaneous  116,300.14   94,610.20  112,920.

Nov. 6, 1872, to Nov. 6, 1873  Nov. 6,1874, to

Nov. 5, 1873. Nov. 5, 1874. Nov. 5, 1875.

7. Company freight earnin $465,734.02 $506,698.53$657,641.

12. Miscellaneous 140,039.31   218,942.15   166.696.94 B.-EXPENDITURES.

Nov. 6, 1869, Nov. 6, 1870,

to   to

Nov. 5, 1870. Nov. 5, 1871.

expenses $829,771.15 $671,194.

2. Motive-power expenses 1,778,601.44  1,229,048.

expenses 608,622.90 302,225.

expenses 1,403,090.28 995,683.

(including taxes) 445,119.88 397,651.

and material account 75,577.

stamps  6,639.32  926.

commissioners 2,391.

refunded

of operating

on floating debt 409,668.66  188,136.

town-lot departments 41,524.47  60,824.

town lots35,778.90 85,105.

20. Interest on first-

mortgage bonds 2,015,326.28  1,715,200.

21. Interest on land-

grant bonds 553,947.91  601,647.

bonds   673,238.41  882,306.

23. Interest on sinking-

fund bonds

bridge bonds

pay coupons     117,569.

bridge

station building

shops, and fixtures,

&c, as per statement

attached 896,977.03 66,849.73 28. Requirements of

sinking-funds for

the redemption of

funded debts:

bonds

mortgage bonds

bridge bonds

redeemed

interest half

transportation

accounts charged

during the year 324,697.40  527,799.

Total   $10,287,954.25  $7,942,755.88 DETAIL OF EXPENDITURES FOR STATION BUILDINGS, &c., CONSTITUTING ITEM 27 ABOVE.

--

Nov. 6, 1869, to Nov. 6, 1870, to  Nov. 6, 1871, to Nov. 6, 1872, too

Nov. 5, 1870. Nov. 5, 1871. Nov. 5, 1872. Nov. 5, 1873. Nov. Nov. 6, 1873, t5, 1874.

1. Station buildings $249,384.74  $48,286.40  $119,795.14 $14,580.

2. Shops and fixtures 40,618.27  94,855.51  106,067.83  2,744.02   $1,718.32  --

3. Equipment 109,933.18    47,598.03  8,380.72  93,213.

4. Government commissioners    91.80 proper to be deducted from 'gross earnings' in order to arrive at 'net earnings.'

1. Tenement-houses and hotels  $1,659.96 $21,229.

2. New station-buildings $6,909.98  18,146.77      78,589.

3. Engine-equipment   25,398.69    63,277.

4. Tanks and water-works     734.99    12,450.

5. Car equipment3,600.00  206,930.

6. Laramie rolling-mills   43,716.01   149,859.

Item 13, 'expense account,' is subject to be reduced by the following amounts in case such outlays are regarded as not proper to be deducted from 'gross earnings' in order to arrive at 'net earnings;' viz., In the year, Nov. 6, 1869, to Nov. 5, 1870, expenses relating to an issue of bonds, $10,339.76; March 13, 1871, cost of a plate for the bridge bonds, $1,500; June 5, 1874, and expense relating to the issue of sinking-fund bonds, $6,579.10.

The disputed expenditures in items 1, 2, 3, and 4 were for new construction. Item 27 was also for new construction.

Item 16 was for the use of the cars of other companies.

Items 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 show payments of interest on debts.

Items 18 and 19 show payments made on account of the land department of the company's business.

Item 26 shows payments in the construction of the Omaha bridge above the amounts received from the sale of the mortgage bonds secured by it.

Items 28 and 29 show-expenditures made for a sinking-fund for the redemption of the company's debt.

Item 30 shows an assumed payment of a portion of the interest on the government subsidy bonds by the application to it of half the government transportation account.

Mr. Sidney Bartlett for the appellant.

The Attorney-General and Mr. Joseph K. McCammon, contra.

MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.


text: Talk:Union Pacific Railroad Company v. United States (99 U.S. 402)