Judicial data via CourtListener (Free Law Project). Social links via Wikidata.
Record analysis
AI-compiled from the cited opinions below
All opinions are from the Supreme Court of the United States, dated 1891-1892. Cases center on corporate operations, property interests, local government obligations, and federal jurisdiction.
Transportation companies
Rulings involving railroads and steamboat navigation companies on liability, operations, and related disputes.
The case involved the New York Electric Lines Company challenging the applicability and constitutionality of 1885 and 1886 New York statutes that required electrical companies to submit plans for underground conduits to a Board of Subway Commissioners for approval before construction in city streets. The company argued that the laws did not apply to it due to a prior 1883 agreement with the city and, if applied, violated the Contract Clause and Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution by impairing its rights and taking its property. The Supreme Court held that the statutes applied to the company, did not impair any contractual rights because those rights had always been subject to state regulation for public interests, and represented a valid exercise of the state's police power through a mere transfer of supervisory authority from one official to another. The Court further ruled that requiring the company to pay the commissioners' salaries did not violate due process, following precedent on regulatory fees. The judgment of the New York courts against the company was affirmed.
This case was a wrongful death action brought by the administrator of Elijah Smith against the Grand Trunk Railway Company after Smith and his wife were struck and killed by a train at a Detroit street crossing while driving in a buggy. The plaintiff alleged negligence by the railroad, including excessive speed in violation of a city ordinance, failure to sound a whistle or bell, and lack of a flagman, while the defendant claimed the deceased was contributorily negligent. After a jury verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's jury instructions on negligence and contributory negligence were proper under the circumstances, that the evidence supported the verdict, and that the defendant's requested instruction was correctly refused because it improperly emphasized certain facts to the exclusion of others.
This case involved a former fourth-class postmaster who sought additional salary after his Nebraska office was reclassified as third-class based on increased gross receipts, raising his pay from $1000 to $1600 annually starting October 1, 1886. The Court of Claims awarded him the difference for the period until his presidential commission in January 1887, and the Supreme Court affirmed that decision. The Court reasoned that under the 1883 statute, the Postmaster General's order assigning the office class and fixing the salary entitled the postmaster to the new rate from the specified date, independent of the commission timing or auditor actions, as salaries are determined by office business volume.
The case concerned whether the Act of 1878 repealed section 354 of the Revised Statutes of the District of Columbia, which had required that members of the District's police force be honorably discharged soldiers or sailors. The Supreme Court held that the 1878 Act repealed section 354 by implication and affirmed the judgment below. The Court reasoned that the 1878 statute was a complete organic act establishing a permanent system of government for the District, granting the commissioners plenary authority over appointments and removals of police officers without regard to prior statutory qualifications. It further noted that the veteran-preference policy underlying section 354 no longer aligned with congressional intent by 1878, as wartime conditions had changed and extending the rule would apply to peacetime service members. The Court rejected arguments that a later 1883 statute revived or recognized section 354 as still in effect.
The case involved a passenger ejected from a New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad train after stopping over at an intermediate station without a separate stop-over check, leading to a suit by the passenger's administrator for damages from the ejection. The railroad argued that the ticket and company rules formed the exclusive contract, making evidence of statements by the ticket agent and first conductor inadmissible and entitling it to a directed verdict. The court held that the evidence of the agent's and conductor's representations was properly admitted because passengers are not presumed to know internal company rules about stop-overs and such statements can form part of the carriage contract; it approved the trial court's jury instructions that the passenger was entitled to rely on those assurances and affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff. The court further ruled that the railroad's requested instructions were either covered by the charge given or properly refused, and it declined to review the amount of the verdict as beyond the scope of writ of error review.
This case involved a lawsuit by Anthony Reybold against a Delaware steamboat company to recover funds the company had received from the United States for the wartime hire of a vessel, either under an alleged agreement allowing Reybold to keep any collected amount or on a quantum meruit basis for his services in prosecuting the claim. The state trial court ruled for Reybold on the work-and-labor count after rejecting the company's defenses, including an argument that the underlying agreement violated federal law on assignments of claims against the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error, concluding that the state judgment rested on independent state-law grounds broad enough to support it without reference to the federal question under Revised Statutes § 3477.
