Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the power of state governments to regulate private industries that affect "the common good".
Cole v. City of La Grange, 113 U.S. 1 (1885), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court ruled on eminent domain to benefit a private corporation.
Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27 (1885), was a United States Supreme Court in which the Court considered the application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to a San Francisco ordinance regulating the establishment of public laundries. The Court held that the regulation of laundries for public health and public safety reasons were clearly within the police powers of the state, and the Fourteenth Amendment was not meant to interfere with the police powers of the state.
Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia S. S. Co. v. Commissioners of Emigration, 113 U.S. 33 (1885), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the court held that the plaintiff was in error, being a corporation under the laws of Great Britain, and an alien, had brought this action in the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of New York, the defendant being a corporation of that state.
Head v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co., 113 U.S. 9 (1885), was a U.S. Supreme Court case considering whether a dam constructed on privately owned land served a public purpose and whether having the owner of the dam compensate any adjacent landowner was a legal form of eminent domain.
Drennen v. London Assurance Co., 113 U.S. 51 (1885), was a fire insurance case regarding two policies of fire insurance, issued March 10, 1883, by the London Assurance Corporation, of London for the property of the firm of Drennen, Starr & Everett, a business in the city of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The loss occurred on July 29, 1883.
Hess v. Reynolds, 113 U.S. 73 (1885), was Supreme Court case determining whether a probate case from Michigan should be moved to federal court and, if so, which federal court should hear it. The court issued a writ of error on the judgment of the Eastern District of Michigan federal court for remanding a case back to the state court and determined that was indeed the appropriate federal court to hear the case.
Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Speck, 113 U.S. 84 (1885), was an appeals case from the circuit court for the Northern district of Illinois a case that had been removed from that court. The appeal was on the grounds that while a party who has a case for removal is not put to his election to exercise or abandon the right to remove at the moment of entering his appearance, he is not permitted unreasonably to delay this election during all the period incident to the preparation of the case, until both parties find themselves in condition to go to trial at law.
Clawson v. United States, 113 U.S. 143 (1885), was a case regarding a Utah territorial statute which authorized an appeal by a defendant in a criminal action from a final judgment of conviction, which provides that an appeal shall stay execution upon filing with the clerk a certificate of a judge that in his opinion there is probable cause for the appeal, and further provides that after conviction, a defendant who has appealed may be admitted to bail as of right when the judgment is for the payment of a fine only, and as matter of discretion in other cases, does not confer upon a defendant convicted and sentenced to pay a fine and be imprisoned the right, after appeal and filing of certificate of probable cause, to be admitted to bail except within the discretion of the court.
Bicknell v. Comstock, 113 U.S. 149 (1885), was an action to recover the cost paid for a tract of land in Iowa and the value of the improvements made by the defendant. The complaint alleged a conveyance by Bicknell to one Bennett, the subsequent transfer to the defendant by sundry mesne conveyances, valuable improvements on the premises made by Bennett and his grantees, and a failure of title in Bicknell when the deed was made by reason of a superior title in the State of Iowa under a land grant. Judgment below for plaintiff, to reverse which this writ of error was brought.
United States v. Mueller, 113 U.S. 153 (1885), was a contracts case before the United States Supreme Court.
Tucker v. Masser, 113 U.S. 203 (1885), was an action of ejectment for the possession of three lots in what is known as Stevens' and Leiter's subdivision of the City of Leadville, in Lake county, Colorado. The court found that this case for a placer mining claim composed of distinct mining locations some of which were made after 1870 and together embracing over one hundred and 60 acres (240,000 m2) is valid. Smelting Co. v. Kemp, 104 U.S. 636 (1881), was carefully considered, and was again affirmed.
Caillot v. Deetken, 113 U.S. 215 (1885), was a writ of error filed in the circuit court recorded March 16, 1882, and the transcript that was returned with it was filed in this Court November 28, 1884. Two full terms of the Court had passed between the filing of the writ of error in the circuit court and its return with the transcript into this Court.
United States v. Steever, 113 U.S. 747 (1885), was an appeal from the court of claims to recover the amount necessary to make up his lawful share of the prize money awarded for the capture of the Confederate naval ram Albemarle.
Harvey v. United States, 113 U.S. 243 (1885), was a case for labor and materials furnished by the claimants in constructing coffer dams in Davenport, Iowa and in performing the work necessarily connected therewith and preliminary to the mason work for the piers and abutments referred to in the contract. That court proceeded on the view that the claimants had no right to rely on the testimony of experts introduced by them as to the value of the work, but should have kept and produced accounts of its cost and expense, but it gave to the claimants the benefit of the testimony of experts introduced by the United States as to such value in awarding the above amount. Held that the claimants could not be deprived of reasonable compensation for their work because they did not produce evidence of the character referred to, when it did not appear that such evidence existed, if the evidence they produced was the best evidence accessible to them and it enabled the court to arrive at a proper conclusion.
Santa Anna v. Frank, 113 U.S. 339 (1885), was a case with no special finding of facts, the general finding of the issues for the plaintiff was not open to review by this court. Town of Martinton, Illinois v. Fairbanks, 112 U.S. 670; S. C. ante, 321. Questions were discussed by counsel for the defendant as to the legal authority of the town to issue the bonds referred to, fairly arose upon the first count of the declaration. But their determination could not affect the judgment, for the common counts were sufficient under the statutes of Illinois to support the judgment without reference to any question of the legal authority to issue the bonds described in the first count. Rev. St. Ill. 1870, c. 110, 58; Bond v. Dustin, 112 U.S. 604; S. C. ante, 296.
Prentice v. Stearns, 113 U.S. 435 (1885), was an action to recover possession of real estate and damages for its detention, the plaintiff in error being plaintiff below, and a citizen of Ohio, the defendant being a citizen of Minnesota, specifically recovery of real estate deeded from an Indian chief to A, in 1858, of a tract described by metes and bounds and further as:
being the land set off to the Indian Chief Buffalo at the Indian Treaty of September 30, 1854, and was afterwards disposed of by said Buffalo to said A, and is now recorded with the government documents
Peugh v. Davis, 113 U.S. 542 (1885), was a suit in equity for redeeming unoccupied and unenclosed city lots from a mortgage, continued from a case brought to the high court during the October 1877 term, the question then was whether certain instruments of writing, made by Peugh to Davis constituted an absolute conveyance of lots in the District of Columbia or were in the nature of a mortgage security for loan of money. The court was of opinion that, on all the facts of the case, the latter was the true construction of the transaction between the parties. Respondent defended against complainant's claim to redeem by setting up that the alleged mortgage was an absolute conveyance. This being decided adversely, held that, in accounting as mortgagee in constructive possession, he was not liable for a temporary speculative rise in the value of the tract, which subsequently declined—both during the time of such possession.
St. Louis v. Myers, 113 U.S. 566 (1885), was a motion to dismiss for want of a federal question to give jurisdiction regarding Acts that admitted Missouri into the Union while leaving the rights of riparian owners on the Mississippi River to be settled according to the principles of state law and relinquishing to the City of St. Louis the rights of the United States in wharves and thoroughfares, which did not authorize the city to impair the rights of other riparian proprietors by extending streets into the river.
