OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Mead v. Ballard/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
74 U.S. 290
Mead v. Ballard
The plaintiff, who sues as heir-at-law of the grantors, maintains that the condition contained in the deed from Mead to Lawrence, is a condition subsequent which has not been performed, and having tendered the money received by them, he now claims the right to recover the land.
It must be conceded that the language of the deed amounts to a condition subsequent, and as no point was made in the trial as to the sufficiency of the tender, the only question before us is whether the condition was performed.
That condition was, that a permanent location of the Institute on the land should be made between the date of the deed and the same day of the succeeding year. The location, then, whatever may have been its character, was something which could have been done and completed within one year. If it was done within that time the plaintiff's rights of reverter was gone. If it was not done within the year, he could refund the money and recover the land. His right, on whatever it depended, must have been complete on the 7th day of September, 1848, for within that time the condition was to be performed.
The thing to be done was the location of the Institute. Did this mean that all the buildings which the institution might ever need were to be built within that time, or did it mean that the officers of the institution were to determine, in good faith, the place where the buildings for its use should be erected? It is clear to us that the latter was the real meaning of the parties, and that when the trustees passed their resolution locating the building on the land, with the intention that it should be the permanent place of conducting the business of the corporation, they had permanently located the Institute within the true construction of the contract.
Counsel for the plaintiff attach to the word 'permanent,' in this connection, a meaning inconsistent with the obvious intent of the parties, that the condition was one which might be fully performed within a year. Such a construction is something more than a condition to locate. It is a covenant to build and rebuild; a covenant against removal at any time; a covenant to keep up an institution of learning on that land forever, or for a very indefinite time. This could not have been the intention of the parties.
We are of opinion that the testimony shows, in any view that can be taken of it, that the condition was fully complied with and performed, and with it passed all right of reversion to the grantor or his heirs.
The rulings of the Circuit Court to which exceptions were taken were in conformity to these views, and its.
JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Mead v. Pinyard

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
154 U.S. 620
Mead v. Pinyard
Mr. Justice HUNT delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Mead v. Thompson/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
82 U.S. 635
Mead v. Thompson
In Morgan v. Thornhill, and in Hall, v. Allen, it was held that no appeal lies to this court from a decree of a Circuit Court, made in the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction conferred upon it by the second section of the Bankrupt Act of March 2d, 1867. If, then, the decree from which these appeals have been taken was made in the exercise of that jurisdiction, they are unauthorized, and they must be dismissed. And that they were thus made is very plainly exhibited in the record. The order of the District Court discharging the bankrupt, was made on the 14th day of June, 1869, and on the 24th of that month, Mead, one of the present appellants, filed in the office of the clerk of that court, a notice that he did thereby appeal from the order of the Circuit Court. This was followed by a bond for costs, which was filed and served by copy on the 3d of July, and on the same day a petition for review of the order of the District judge was verified and served. The prayer of the petition was that the Circuit judge would review the decision of the District judge and reverse the same, and grant such further order or relief as might seem just.
Whatever may have been intended, on the 24th day of June, when the notice of an appeal was given, it is plain that the appellant sought relief afterwards only by his petition of review under the first clause of the second section of the act.
And the same remark may be made respecting the Merchants' Exchange National Bank, of New York, the other appellants to this court. Indeed, the record exhibits no notice given by them of an intention to appeal from the order of the District Court, nor even any petition for a review. It is intimated, however, in the proceedings of the Circuit Court, that such a petition was presented, and it may be assumed to have been a fact.
The present appellants then came before the Circuit Court, not as appellants from the order of discharge made by the District judge, but as applicants for the general superintending power of the Circuit Court over all questions arising under the Bankrupt Act; merely as petitioners for that revision which we have held to be final. And only that revisory jurisdiction was exercised. This is evident from the decision of the Circuit Court, made April 13th, 1871, from which these appeals have been taken.
Whether, if appeals had been taken from the District Court and prosecuted in the Circuit Court, and if the Circuit Court had heard and decided them, an appeal would lie to this court, need not now be determined, for we have no such case before us. The present, being appeals from a decision made by the Circuit Court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, cannot be entertained.
APPEALS DISMISSED.

## Notes

* ↑ 11 Wallace. 65.
* ↑ 12 Id. 452.
* ↑ Quoted supra, p. 637.-REP.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Meade v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
76 U.S. 691
Meade v. United States

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Men-at-the-Bar/Thomson, Ninian Hill

​Thomson, Ninian Hill, M.A. Oxon, author of Limitations of Civil Suits in India, a member of Faculty of Advocates Edinburgh 1855, a student of the Middle Temple 10 April, 1874, called to the bar 13 June, 1877 (2nd son of late William Thomson, M.D., formerly professor of medicine in Glasgow Univ.); born , .
    Edinburgh.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Thomson, Reginald

​Thomson, Reginald, vakeel or pleader Madras, a student of the Middle Temple 3 Nov., 1870, called to the bar 7 June, 1873 (son of Robert Thomson, of Bangalore, Madras, gent.); born , .
    Madras.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Thornbury, David Featherby

​Thornbury, David Featherby, M.A., Caius Coll., Camb., 1852, a student of the Inner Temple 21 Jan., 1848 (then aged 22), called to the bar 21 Nov., 1851 (only son of David Thornbury, of Washingborough, co. Linc.); born , 1826.
    6, Fig Tree Court, Temple, E.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Thomson, Arthur Dyott

​Thomson, Arthur Dyott, M.A., Balliol Coll., Oxon, 1849, a student of the Inner Temple 18 Nov., 1846 (then aged 25), called to the bar 7 June, 1852 (only son of Thomas Thomson, M.D., inspector-general of hospitals); born 22 Aug., 1821; married 2 June, 1853, Elizabeth, widow of Greig Thomson, Esq., of London.
    12, Pembridge Villas, W.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Thomson, John Robert

​Thomson, John Robert, a student of the Middle Temple 19 Dec., 1863, called to the bar 17 Nov., 1866 (2nd son of John Robert Thomson, of London, merchant); born , .
    Moatlands, Brenchley, Kent; Junior Carlton Club, S.W.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Thompson, William Henry

​Thompson, William Henry, M.A., Caius Coll., Camb., 1869, practises before the High Court of the Punjab, a student of the Inner Temple 26 Oct., 1868 (then aged 28), called to the bar 26 Jan., 1872 (8th son of Frederick Elijah Thompson, late of Gray's Inn, solicitor, dec.); born , 1840.
    Punjab.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Thompson, William Whitaker

​Thompson, William Whitaker, M.A., Trin. Coll., Camb., 1884, LL.B. 1880, a member of the North-eastern circuit, a student of the Inner Temple 8 Nov., 1877 (then aged 20), called to the bar 11 May, 1881 (3rd son of Matthew William Thompson, of Park Gate, Guiseley, Yorks, bar.-at-law); born , 1857.
    Park Gate, Guiseley, Leeds; 1, Temple Gardens, E.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Thompson, William

​Thompson, William, a student of the Middle Temple 6 April, 1877, called to the bar 26 Jan., 1880 (2nd son of Moses Thompson, Esq., of Londonderry); born , .
    3, Temple Gardens, E.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Thomson, Andrew

​Thomson, Andrew, LL.D. London Univ. 1861, B.A. 1857, equity professor to Inns of Court 1873–5, a student of the Inner Temple 1 June, 1858 (then aged 25), called to the bar 6 June, 1861 (2nd son of James Thomson, of Liverpool, M.D.); born , 1833; married 11 Oct., 1866, Ada Rose, elder surviving dau. of Frederick Farrer, Esq., of Doctors' Commons.
    9, Maude Grove, West Brompton, S.W.; 3, New Square, Lincoln's Inn, W.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Thompson, William Frederic

​Thompson, William Frederic, M.A. Lincoln Coll., Oxon, B.A. 1871, a student of the Inner Temple 17 March, 1869 (then aged 21), called to the bar 17 Nov., 1873 (2nd son of Rev. James Thompson, D.D., late rector of Lincoln Coll., Oxon); born , 1848.
    44, Russell Road, W.
# Miller v. McClain

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
249 U.S. 308
Miller v. McClain
Argued: Nov. 13, 1918. --- Decided: March 31, 1919
Messrs. A. E. Crane, of Topeka, Kan., and F. T. Woodburn, of Holton, Kan., for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. Robert Stone, George T. McDermott, and H. O. Caster, all of Topeka, Kan., for defendant in error.
Mr. Chief Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Miller v. McKenzie

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
77 U.S. 582
Miller v. McKenzie
ERROR to the District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi.
Pitzer Miller brought suit in the court just named against Larkin McKenzie, James Hamer, Joseph Hamer, and Ezekiel Wall, to recover the value of several bales of cotton. Such proceedings were had that a judgment was rendered for the defendants, whereupon the plaintiff brought this writ of error; the writ reciting that the proceedings were between 'Peter Miller, Larkin McKenzie, and others.'
Mr. P. Phillips, on the part of the defendants, now moved to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.
Mr. T. Wilson, contra.
Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Miller v. McLaughlin

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
281 U.S. 261
Miller v. McLaughlin
Argued: Feb. 28 and March 3, 1930. --- Decided: April 14, 1930
Messrs. A. Henry Walter, of Washington, D. C., and Seymour L. Smith, of Omaha, Neb., for petitioner.
Mr. C. A. Sorensen, of Lincoln, Neb., for respondents.
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Miller v. M'Intyre

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
31 U.S. 61
Miller v. M'Intyre
APPEAL from the circuit of the United States for the district of Kentucky.
The facts and pleadings of the case are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr Doddridge and Mr Denny for the appellants, and by Mr Wickliffe and Mr Daniel for the appellees.
Mr Justice M'LEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Miller v. McKenzie/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
77 U.S. 582
Miller v. McKenzie
It appears, from an inspection of the record, that the writ of error is defective in respect to the parties. It is therein recited that the proceedings are between Pitzer Miller and Larkin McKenzie, and others. This defect has been held so many times in this court as fatal to its jurisdiction that it need be but mentioned to require a dismissal of the case.
MOTION GRANTED.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Missouri Pacific Company v. Prude

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
265 U.S. 99
Missouri Pacific Company v. Prude
Argued: May 1, 1924. --- Decided: May 12, 1924
Messrs. Edward J. White, of St. Louis, Mo., and Thomas B. Pryor, of Ft. Smith, Ark., for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. S. S. Hargraves, S. H. Mann, Sr., and S. H. Mann, Jr., all of Forrest City, Ark., for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Missouri Pacific Company v. Reynolds-Davis Grocery Company/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
268 U.S. 366
Missouri Pacific Company v. Reynolds-Davis Grocery Company
Argued: April 21, 1925. --- Decided: May 25, 1925
This action was brought in a state court of Arkansas by Reynolds-Davis Grocery Company against the Missouri Pacific Railroad to recover for the loss of part of a carload of sugar shipped from Raceland, La., to Fort Smith, Ark., on a through bill of lading. The loss occurred within the city of Fort Smith while the car was in the possession of the St. Louis-San Francisco Railroad. This carrier had been employed by the Missouri Pacific to switch the car from a point on its lines within the city to the consignee's warehouse, which lay within the city on the lines of the switching carrier. The Missouri Pacific, relying upon Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Co. v. McGinn, 258 U.S. 409, 42 S.C.t. 332, 66 L. Ed. 689, requested the trial court to rule that, as the bill of lading provided that no connecting carrier should be liable for any damage which did not occur on its own lines, and delivery at the consignee's warehouse was part of an interstate shipment, the defendant was not liable, because it was neither the initial nor the delivering carrier. The court refused to rule as requested; the jury found for the plaintiff; and the judgment entered on the verdict was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Arkansas. 161 Ark. 579, 257 S. W. 70. This court granted a writ of certiorari, 265 U.S. 577, 44 S.C.t. 636, 68 L. Ed. 1188.
The joint through rate covered delivery at the warehouse of the consignee. The bill of lading named Morgan's Louisiana & Texas Railroad & Steamship Company as the initial carrier and the route designated therein named the Missouri Pacific as the last of the connecting carriers. Its lines enter Fort Smith but do not extend to the consignee's warehouse. It employed the St. Louis-San Francisco to perform the necessary switching service. And it paid therefor $6.30, the charge fixed by the tariff on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission. The switching carrier was not named in the bill of lading and did not receive any part of the joint through rate. It was simply the agent of the Missouri Pacific for the purpose of delivery. The Missouri Pacific was the delivering carrier and is liable as such.
Affirmed.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Missouri Pacific Company v. Norwood

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
283 U.S. 249
Missouri Pacific Company v. Norwood
Argued: March 10, 11, 1931. --- Decided: April 13, 1931
Messrs. Edward J. White, of St. Louis, Mo., and Thomas B. Pryor, of Fort Smith, Ark., for appellant.
Messrs. Donald R. Richberg, of Chicago, Ill., and Hal Norwood, of Little Rock, Ark., for appellees.
Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Missouri Pacific Company v. Prude/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
265 U.S. 99
Missouri Pacific Company v. Prude
Argued: May 1, 1924. --- Decided: May 12, 1924
The writ of error was improvidently granted and must be dismissed. The application for the writ of certiorari is granted. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. v. Starbird, 243 U.S. 592, 37 Sup. Ct. 462, 61 L. Ed. 917; Act Sept. 6, 1916, c. 448, § 2, 39 Stat. 726, amending Judicial Code, § 237 (Comp. St. § 1214).
Respondent purchased from petitioner a round-trip coupon ticket issued at its office in Forrest City, Ark., which authorized her to travel over its line to Texarkana, Ark., thence over the Texas Pacific Railroad to Longview, Tex., and from the latter point over the International & Great Northern Railroad to Houston, Tex., and return via the same route. Claiming that while on the line of the last-named company she was assaulted by the auditor, she instituted an action to recover damages from the selling carrier in the circuit court for St. Francis county, Ark.
Defending, the carrier set up and established that the ticket called for passage over three independent lines and contained the following:
'In selling this ticket and checking baggage hereon, the selling carrier acts only as agent and is not responsible beyond its own lines.'
And it maintained that any assault upon respondent was by the auditor of the International & Great Northern Railroad Company for whose acts petitioner was not responsible.
The ticket was purchased over the telephone. When respondent reached the depot she paid the purchase price and was handed the ticket in an envelope. She did not sign or inspect it.
The trial court denied a peremptory instruction in favor of petitioner, and the case was sent to the jury upon the theory that the assault constituted a breach of the initial carrier's contract for safe transportation. Judgment went in favor of respondent for both compensatory and punitive damages, and was affirmed as to the former by the Supreme Court of Arkansas. This was error.
An interstate carrier is entitled to the presumption that its business is being conducted lawfully. Acceptance and use of the ticket sufficed to establish an agreement, prima facie valid, which limited the selling carrier's liability. Mere failure of the passenger to read matter plainly placed before her cannot overcome the presumption of assent. New York Central & Hudson River R. R. v. Beaham, 242 U.S. 148, 151, 37 Sup. Ct. 43, 61 L. Ed. 210; Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Ry. v. Woodbury, 254 U.S. 357, 360, 41 Sup. Ct. 114, 65 L. Ed. 301.
Reversed.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Missouri Pacific Company v. Stroud

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
267 U.S. 404
Missouri Pacific Company v. Stroud
Argued: Jan. 14, 1925. --- Decided: March 2, 1925
Messrs. Thomas T. Railey, Edward J. White, and James F. Green, all of St. Louis, Mo., and J. C. Sheppard, of Poplar Bluff, Mo., for petitioner.
Mr. George H. Moore, of St. Louis, Mo., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Missouri Pacific Company v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
271 U.S. 603
Missouri Pacific Company v. United States
Argued: April 28, 1926. --- Decided: June 7, 1926
Mr. Fred. H. Wood, of New York City, for appellant.
Mr. Alfred A. Wheat, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Missouri Pacific Company v. Reynolds-Davis Grocery Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
268 U.S. 366
Missouri Pacific Company v. Reynolds-Davis Grocery Company
Argued: April 21, 1925. --- Decided: May 25, 1925
Messrs. Thomas B. Pryor and Vincent M. Miles, both of Fort Smith, Ark., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 366-368 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Joseph M. Hill, John P. Woods, and Harry P. Daily, all of Fort Smith, Ark., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Men-at-the-Bar/Arnold, Charles Comber

​Arnold, Charles Comber, M.A. New Coll., Oxon, a member of the North-eastern circuit, a student of the Inner Temple 17 June, 1876 (then aged 19), called to the bar 26 Jan., 1880 (only son of Alfred Arnold, of Moorland House, Halifax, Yorkshire); born , 1857.
    Clare Hall, Halifax; 4, Hare Court, Temple, E.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Ashmore, Charles James

​Ashmore, Charles James, M.A. Pembroke Coll., Oxon, equity draftsman and conveyancer, a student of the Inner Temple 30 Dec, 1865 (then aged 22), called to the bar 17 Nov., 1868 (only son of Rev. Paul Ashmore, LL.B., of London); born 19 Dec, 1843; married 28 Oct, 1880, Rosa Gloag Gloag.
    31, Gloucester Terrace, Hyde Park, W
# Men-at-the-Bar/Ashley, Hon. Anthony Evelyn Melbourne

​Ashley, Hon. Anthony Evelyn Melbourne, under-secretary of state for the colonies 1882, B.A., Trin. Coll., Camb., 1858, M.P. Isle of Wight since April, 1880, Poole 1874-80, sec. to Board of Trade 1880-2, second church estates ommissioner 1880, private sec. to Lord Palmerston when First Lord of the Treasury 1859-65, assisted at the investiture of Christian IX. of Denmark with the order of the Garter May, 1865, treasurer of county courts Dorset 1863-74, a student of Lincoln's Inn 22 Nov., 1856, called to the bar 6 June, 1863 (2nd son of Rt. Hon. Anthony, Earl of Shaftesbury); born 24 July, 1836; married 28 July, 1866, Sybella Charlotte, 2nd dau. of Sir Walter Rockcliffe Farquhar, Bart., and has issue (see Foster's Peerage).
    6, Cadogan Place, S.W. ; Brook's Club.