Southern Ry. Co. v. Argued: Feb. 23, 1916
Decided: April 10, 1916
Reported: 240 U. S. 632
Chicago, B. & Q. R. Sub't'd: April 17, 1916 1, 1916 R. Co. v. HarringDecided: May Reported: 241 U. S. 177 ton
of judg- against directors of the defendant's ment entered in the bank to recover damages attributed di- to false representation of the bank's District Court condition, are sustained by the facts rected. and the applicable provisions of statute.
Judgment of South
Carolina Supreme
a
Court sustaining
verdict for the plain-
tiff reversed.
Judgment of Tennes-
Supreme Court
see
sustaining a verdict
for the plaintiff af-
firmed.
Decree of the U. S.
District Court dismiss
ing the libel reversed,
and the cause
manded.
The obligation of the defendant as
an interstate carrier and warehouse-
man of consigned goods after their
arrival at destination was not gov-
erned by the State law.
The Court will not take judicial no-
tice that the cars in which the de-
ceased was injured came from without
the State and were therefore engaged
in interstate commerce at the time
of the injury.
Admiralty has jurisdiction of a libel
in rem against a ship for the dam-
age caused by its collision with an
re- incompleted beacon, located in navi-
gable waters and designed for use
solely as a governmental aid to navi-
gation.
Judgment of Kansas Regardless of whether an injured emCity Court of Appeals ployé had previously been, or in the verdict immediate future was to be, engaged sustaining a
U. S. v. Coca Cola Co. Argued: Feb. 29, 1916
Decided: May 22, 1916
Reported: 241 U. S. 265
Action. [Unanimous unless otherwise shown] firmed. for the plaintiff af
Judgment of Georgia
Court of Appeals sus-
taining a verdict for
the plaintiff affirmed.
Judgment of Circuit
Court of Appeals in
Cola Co. reversed.
favour of the Coca
in interstate commerce, the Federal
Employers' Liability Act does not
apply unless he was engaged in in-
injured.
terstate commerce at the time he was
The Carmack Amendment of Section
20 of the Hepburn bill casts upon
the initial carrier responsibility with
respect to the entire transportation
and enables judgment against the
connecting carrier.
initial carrier for misdelivery by the
Under the Food and Drugs Act of
1906, there is a misbranding if the
article sold under a name made by
uniting several names descriptive of
the article does not contain any of
the articles generally known indi-
vidually by any of such names, and
the question whether "an added in-
gredient" such as caffeine is poison-
ous or deleterious is a question for
the jury, even though such ingredient
is covered by the formula and is
made a constituent of the article sold.
Argued: April 14, 1916
Decided: June 5, 1916
Reported: 241 U. S. 403
Judgment of Circuit
Court of Appeals sus-
taining verdict for the
defendant affirmed.
Argued: Mar. 7, 1916 Judgment of Missouri
Decided: June 5, 1916 Supreme Court sus-
Reported: 241 U. S. 419 taining assessments
Levindale Lead Co. Argued: April 25, 1916
v. Coleman Decided: June 5, 1916
Reported: 241 U. S. 432
Questions relating to a transaction
between two banks regarding drafts
and documents annexed thereto de-
termined.
The Seventh amendment is not ap-
plicable to an assessment or condem-
nation proceeding in a State court.
Judgment of Okla- The Osage Indian Allotment Act of
homa Supreme Court 1906 placed no restriction upon the
annulling a convey- alienation of land, or undivided in-
ance of Indian lands terests in land, of which white men
reversed.
who were not members of the tribe
became owners.
Judgment of New The clause of a grant reserving to
York Court of Ap- the Indian grantors and their heirs
peals affirmed. This the privilege of fishing and hunting
opinion by direction on the tract of land conveyed does
of the Court had been not reserve tribal rights paramount to
prepared by Hughes, the inherent sovereign power of the
J., and was approved State to enforce regulations for the
before his resignation. preservation of fish and game within
After that event it its borders.
TABLE OF DISSENTS BY JUSTICE HUGHES FROM THE MAJORITY OPINION
Argued.
Decided.
Reported.
Thompson v. Thomp- Argued: Oct. 27, 1910
Decided: Dec. 12, 1910
Reported: 218 U. S. 611
Action,
Judgment of Court of
Appeals for the Dis-
trict of Columbia af-
firmed; Day, J., writ-
ing, and White, Ch.
ring;
J., and McKenna and
Harlan,
Lurton, JJ., concur-
J.,
writing, and Holmes
curring, in dissent.
and Hughes, JJ., con-
Majority and Minority View.
Majority view that under existing
statutes a wife cannot maintain an
action in the District of Columbia
against her husband to recover dam-
ages for an assault and battery by
him upon her person. Minority view
that the Courts should not concern
themselves with the expediency of
giving the wife such a right of ac-
tion, but should declare the law as
it has been established by com-
petent legislative authority. Existing
statutes are held clearly to give the
wife the right to sue for injuries by
an assault, and the clearly expressed
will of the legislature should not be
defeated by a construction of its
words that cannot be reconciled with
their ordinary meaning.
9, 1910 Direct appeal from Majority view that where the CirDecided: Dec. 12, 1910 judgment of the Cir- cuit Court enjoined enforcement of
land Tel. Co. Memphis v. Cumber- Argued: Nov.
Reported: 218 U. S. 624 cuit Court of the U. municipal ordinances regulating the
S. dismissed for want complainant's telephone rates and the
of jurisdiction; Day,
J., writing, and Har-
lan, Holmes and Lur-
ton, JJ., concurring;
White, Ch. J., writ-
ing, and McKenna
and Hughes, JJ., con-
curring, in dissent.
bill alleged that the ordinances were
unauthorised and illegal, and were
discriminatory, unequal
and con-
fiscatory, etc., and the opinion of the
Circuit Court stated that the result
of the ordinances was "destructive
of the complainant's rights under the
Federal Constitution, the allega-
tions of the bill must be construed
as referring to the State Constitution
and as creating no basis for jurisdic-
tion of the Supreme Court to review
direct appeal the adverse de-
termination below. Minority view
that the opinion of the Court below
is a part of the record, as well as
the complainant's bill, and may be
examined to see if a reviewable issue
was decided below; and that where
the Court below has enjoined
municipal regulation by deciding a
question of Federal right adversely
to the municipality, the Supreme
Court has jurisdiction and duty to
review and correct the error com-
mitted by the Court below, whether
such error arose from a wrong de-
cision of the Federal question (i. e.
|