Today in Supreme Court History: December 22, 1789

12/22/1789: Justice Levi Woodbury born.

Justice Levi Woodbury

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Memphis & L. R.R. Co. v. Berry, 112 U.S. 609 (decided December 22, 1884): tax break given to railroad company formed by act of legislature does not survive such that company which purchased it can benefit from it

Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539 (decided December 22, 1947): conspiracy prosecution doesn't have to identify all conspirators (conspiracy here was to sell whiskey at prices above ceiling set under Emergency Price Control Act of 1942); "secrecy and concealment are essential features of successful conspiracy"

New York Belting & Packing Co. v. New Jersey Car-Spring & Rubber Co., 137 U.S. 445 (decided December 22, 1890): design of corrugated mat was not "novel" enough to warrant a patent (the opinion has a drawing of the mat which does not do justice to its properties as described -- corrugated sections juxtaposed such that as one passes over it one sees "moiré patterns" and "mosaic" effects) ("If the person changes his position continuously the effects are kaleidoscopic") (the kaleidoscope was patented, as well as various improvements to it -- why not this mat?)

[F.D. Wolf]

I was minorly curious as to what on earth the federal issue was in the railroad case so that the Supreme Court was even entertaining it. It was the good ole Contracts Clause, a constitutional dead letter if there ever was one. "No State shall... [pass any] Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts." The Court has essentially written that completely out of the Constitution, and when a state does impair a contract, the Court generally allows it under the state's "police power".

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks. But my reading of the case was that the Court was just following the language of the chartering legislation.

[F.D. Wolf]

No, you're right. But how does claiming "the state isn't giving us the state tax break they promised us" get you into federal court? You claim the state's doing so violates the federal Constitution. From the first paragraph of the opinion:

The supreme court of the state, on appeal, affirmed the decree of the chancery court dismissing the bill. That decree of the supreme court is brought here by writ of error for review on the allegation that it enforced a law of the state impairing the obligation of a contract in violation of the rights of the plaintiff in error under the Constitution of the United States.

So, once the Court accepts there is a federal question involved, it then proceeds to interpret the contract, which it did in this case, holding, as you noted, that the tax break only applied to the previous owners.

[wolfefan]

That mat sounds kinda cool! I'd love to see one of those.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Supplies are running out, act soon!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Supplies are running out, act soon!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The Treasury Department Web site has a profile of Woodbury’s term as Secretary of the Treasury, but not as a Supreme Court justice – not even a passing mention.

https://home.treasury.gov/about/history/prior-secretaries/levi-woodbury-1834-1841

Woodbury was involved in the great financial debates of the Jacksonian era…

Hmmm, I have the strange feeling that someone is dialing up the Internet Stupidifier, making my comments dumber.

Well, it was probably my imagination…

Anyway, as I was saying, I bet Woodbury really *buried* his *wood,* huh-huh, huh, huh-huh.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Don’t comment when drunk. I made that mistake the other day.