List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 113

This is a list of cases reported in volume 113 of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1885.

Justices of the Supreme Court at the time of volume 113 U.S.

The Supreme Court is established by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .". The size of the Court is not specified; the Constitution leaves it to Congress to set the number of justices. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 Congress originally fixed the number of justices at six (one chief justice and five associate justices). Since 1789 Congress has varied the size of the Court from six to seven, nine, ten, and back to nine justices (always including one chief justice).

When the cases in volume 113 U.S. were decided the Court comprised the following nine members:

Portrait Justice Office Home State Succeeded Date confirmed by the Senate(Vote) Tenure on Supreme Court Morrison Waite Chief Justice Ohio Salmon P. Chase (63–0) –March 23, 1888(Died) Samuel Freeman Miller Associate Justice Iowa Peter Vivian Daniel (Acclamation) –October 13, 1890(Died) Stephen Johnson Field Associate Justice California newly created seat (Acclamation)–December 1, 1897(Retired) Joseph P. Bradley Associate Justice New Jersey newly created seat (46–9) –January 22, 1892(Died) John Marshall Harlan Associate Justice Kentucky David Davis (Acclamation) –October 14, 1911(Died) William Burnham Woods Associate Justice Georgia William Strong (39–8) –May 14, 1887(Died) Stanley Matthews Associate Justice Ohio Noah Haynes Swayne (24–23) –March 22, 1889(Died) Horace Gray Associate Justice Massachusetts Nathan Clifford (51–5) –September 15, 1902(Died) Samuel Blatchford Associate Justice New York Ward Hunt (Acclamation) –July 7, 1893(Died)

Citation style

Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 the federal court structure at the time comprised District Courts, which had general trial jurisdiction; Circuit Courts, which had mixed trial and appellate (from the US District Courts) jurisdiction; and the United States Supreme Court, which had appellate jurisdiction over the federal District and Circuit courts—and for certain issues over state courts. The Supreme Court also had limited original jurisdiction (i.e., in which cases could be filed directly with the Supreme Court without first having been heard by a lower federal or state court). There were one or more federal District Courts and/or Circuit Courts in each state, territory, or other geographical region.

Bluebook citation style is used for case names, citations, and jurisdictions. "C.C.D." = United States Circuit Court for the District of . . . e.g.,"C.C.D.N.J." = United States Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey "D." = United States District Court for the District of . . . e.g.,"D. Mass." = United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts "E." = Eastern; "M." = Middle; "N." = Northern; "S." = Southern; "W." = Western e.g.,"C.C.S.D.N.Y." = United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York e.g.,"M.D. Ala." = United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama "Ct. Cl." = United States Court of Claims The abbreviation of a state's name alone indicates the highest appellate court in that state's judiciary at the time. e.g.,"Pa." = Supreme Court of Pennsylvania e.g.,"Me." = Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

List of cases in volume 113 U.S.

Case Name Page & year Opinion of the Court Concurring opinion(s) Dissenting opinion(s) Lower Court Disposition Cole v. City of La Grange1 (1885) Gray none none C.C.E.D. Mo. affirmed - style="background: white" colspan=7 The general grant of legislative power in a state constitution only enables the legislature to use eminent domain or taxation to take private property, without the owner's consent, for a public purpose. Head v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Company9 (1885) Gray none none N.H. affirmed Barbier v. Connolly27 (1885) Field none none Cal. Super. Ct. affirmed Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia Steamship Company v. Commissioners of Emigration33 (1885) Matthews none none C.C.S.D.N.Y. reversed Davison v. Von Lingen40 (1885) Blatchford none none C.C.D. Md. affirmed Drennen v. London Assurance Company51 (1885) Harlan none none C.C.D. Minn. reversed Hollister v. Benedict and Burnham Manufacturing Company59 (1885) Matthews none none C.C.D. Conn. reversed Hess v. Reynolds73 (1885) Miller none none C.C.E.D. Mich. reversed Polleys v. Black River Improvement Company81 (1885) Miller none none Wis. Cir. Ct. dismissed Pullman Palace Car Company v. Speck84 (1885) Miller none none C.C.N.D. Ill. affirmed Griffith v. Godey89 (1885) Field none none C.C.D. Cal. reversed Rowell v. Lindsay97 (1885) Woods none none C.C.E.D. Wis. affirmed Findlay v. McAllister104 (1885) Woods none none C.C.E.D. Mo. reversed Central Railroad and Banking Company of Georgia v. Pettus116 (1885) Harlan none none C.C.M.D. Ala. reversed Steele v. United States128 (1885) Woods none none Ct. Cl. affirmed Ackley School District v. Hall135 (1885) Harlan none none C.C.D. Iowa affirmed Clawson v. United States143 (1885) Harlan none none Sup. Ct. Terr. Utah affirmed Bicknell v. Comstock149 (1885) Miller none none C.C.E.D.N.Y. reversed United States v. Mueller153 (1885) Blatchford none none Ct. Cl. affirmed Consolidated Safety-Valve Company v. Crosby Steam Gauge and Valve Company157 (1885) Blatchford none none C.C.D. Mass. reversed - style="background: white" colspan=7 Novelty sufficient to distinguish a patent from prior art can be suggested by facts demonstrating the practical value of the invention. Here, the fact that known versions of the invention were not used and the fact that the claimed invention was widely adopted quickly suggest that the claimed invention had some modicum of novelty that its contemporaries lacked. Bryan v. Kennett179 (1885) Harlan none none C.C.E.D. Mo. affirmed Northern Liberty Market Company v. Kelly199 (1885) Gray none none Sup. Ct. D.C. reversed Tucker v. Masser203 (1885) Field none none C.C.D. Colo. reversed - style="background: white" colspan=7 A patent for a placer mining claim composed of distinct mining locations, some of which were made after 1870 and together embracing over one hundred and sixty acres, is valid. Affirming Smelting Co. v. Kemp, 104 U.S. 636 (1881). Cardwell v. American Bridge Company205 (1885) Field none none C.C.D. Cal. affirmed Voss v. Fisher213 (1885) Woods none none C.C.W.D. Mich. reversed - style="background: white" colspan=7 This case was about alleged patent infringement, and the claimed invention included a stuffed pad within a horse collar. The defendant did not infringe because the contested device did not include a stuffed pad or an equivalent. Caillot v. Deetken215 (1885) Miller none none C.C.D. Cal. dismissed - style="background: white" colspan=7 The Supreme Court cannot have jurisdiction over a case based on a writ of error that was untimely filed. In this case, the filing was untimely because it came in after the end of the Supreme Court term following the filing of the writ in the circuit court. Cheong Ah Moy v. United States216 (1885) Miller none none C.C.D. Cal. dismissed - style="background: white" colspan=7 A habeas corpus petition seeking to prevent a deportation is moot after the petitioner has been deported.Diamond, Sidney A. "Federal Jurisdiction to Decide Moot Cases." University of Pennsylvania Law Review 94.2 (1946): 125-147. Price v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company218 (1885) Miller none none Pa. dismissed Dakota County v. Glidden222 (1885) Miller none none C.C.D. Neb. dismissed Anderson County v. Beal227 (1885) Blatchford none none C.C.D. Kan. affirmed Harvey v. United States243 (1885) Blatchford none none Ct. Cl. multiple Central Railroad of New Jersey v. Mills249 (1885) Gray none none C.C.D.N.J. affirmed - style="background: white" colspan=7 Whether a plaintiff claims federal question jurisdiction is decided based on the legal construction of its own pleading and not by the described effects of the allegations claimed by the defendant.Jessica K. Pruitt, "Cafa-Nated": A Jittery Interpretation of Forum Selection in Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, 68 Ark. L. Rev. 511 (2015). A corporation is an antagonistic, necessary party to a stockholder's derivative suit that arises from the corporation's fraudulent conduct performed while acting in concert with other defendants.R. D. Hursh, Diversity of citizenship, for purposes of federal jurisdiction, in stockholders' derivative action, 68 A.L.R.2d 824 (Originally published in 1959). Looney v. District of Columbia258 (1885) Gray none none Ct. Cl. affirmed - style="background: white" colspan=7 A government contractor cannot both sell the debts owed to them by the District of Columbia at a discount as a security and also sue the District for the difference in what they were owed. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway Co. v. United States261 (1885) Gray none none Ct. Cl. affirmed - style="background: white" colspan=7 A consent decree is always affirmed without considering the merits of the cause.Robert R. Zitko, The Appealability of Conditional Consent Judgments, 1994 U. Ill. L. Rev. 241 (1994). Coon v. Wilson268 (1885) Blatchford none none C.C.S.D.N.Y. reversed Spaids v. Cooley278 (1885) Blatchford none none Sup. Ct. D.C. reversed Sully v. Drennan 287 (1885) Miller none none C.C.S.D. Iowa affirmed - style="background: white" colspan=7 The assignment by a railroad company of a tax approved by a township's vote conveys the rights of the company subject to all the equities between the company and the taxpayers, if it conveys it at all. However, in a suit by a taxpayer to invalidate the tax because the company failed to comply with conditions precedent to its collection, the company and the assignee are necessary parties with an interest opposed to that of the taxpayer; the trustees of the township and the county treasurer are also necessary parties with an interest different from that of the taxpayer.Syllabus of . Avegno v. Schmidt293 (1885) Woods none none La. affirmed Stone v. Chisolm302 (1885) Miller none none C.C.D.S.C. affirmed - style="background: white" colspan=7 A single action in equity is appropriate in a lawsuit against the directors of a corporation pursuant to statute when the debts of the corporation exceed the value of capital stock where the intent of the statute is that the directors' liability shall be for the "common benefit" of all interested parties. I.e., a jury is not required to find facts in such a case.In re GI Holdings, Inc., 323 B.R. 583 (Bankr. Court, D. New Jersey 2005). Thornley v. United States310 (1885) Miller none none Ct. Cl. affirmed Baylis v. Travellers' Insurance Company316 (1885) Matthews none none C.C.E.D.N.Y. reversed Pneumatic Gas Company v. Berry322 (1885) Field none none C.C.E.D. Mich. affirmed Ex parte Bigelow328 (1885) Miller none none Sup. Ct. D.C. habeas corpus denied Quincy v. Jackson332 (1885) Harlan none none C.C.S.D. Ill. affirmed Town of Santa Anna v. Frank339 (1885) Harlan none none not indicated affirmed - style="background: white" colspan=7 Where there are no special findings of facts after a bench trial, the general factual finding deciding the case in the plaintiff's favor is not appealable. A dispute about a legal ruling that was properly raised will not be considered if deciding it cannot affect the judgment below. McArthur v. Scott340 (1885) Gray none Waite C.C.S.D. Ohio reversed - style="background: white" colspan=7 In actions contesting wills, people who were not yet born at the time of the action cannot be bound by the decision if the representative of their interest was antagonistic to them.James Wm. Moore & Marcus Cohn, Federal Class Actions, 32 Ill. L. Rev. 307 (1937-1938). Hyatt v. Vincennes National Bank408 (1885) Blatchford none none C.C.D. Ind. affirmed - style="background: white"