2 U.S. 180 (_) 2 Dall. 180 WOOD versus ROACH. Supreme Court of United States. Moylan, for the defendant. For the plaintiff, Serjeant and Todd. M`KEAN, Chief Justice: This is not the best evidence; and, therefore, it cannot be admitted. BRADFORD, Justice: The paper offered in evidence is not a bill of lading; but it is offered as a copy, and to prove that a bill of lading, of the same tenor and date, was executed. If the instrument itself were produced, proof of the signature would be *181 prima...
2 U.S. 401 (_) 2 Dall. 401 WEST, Plf. in Err. versus BARNES. et al. Supreme Court of United States. Barnes, one of the defendants. THE COURT were unanimously of opinion, That writs of error to remove causes to this court from inferior courts, can regularly issue only from the clerk's office of this court. Motion refused.
2 U.S. 401 (_) 2 Dall. 401 VANSTOPHORST et al. versus the STATE of MARYLAND. Supreme Court of United States. But, BY THE COURT: We will not award the commission, till commissioners are named. This being done, the motion was granted.
2 U.S. 194 (_) 2 Dall. 194 STILLE versus LYNCH. [*] Supreme Court of United States. But it was ruled by THE COURT, that Lynch could not be a witness in this case; as he was offered, in fact, to invalidate his own instrument. 1 Term. Rep. 599. NOTES [*] This case was decided at Philadelphia, Nisi Prius, held in November 1791, before the CHIEF JUSTICE, SHIPPEN and BRADFORD, Justices.
2 U.S. 179 2 Dall. 179 1 L. Ed. 339 Shaw v. Wallace Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1792 1 This cause was set down for trial; but was afterwards continued by the plaintiff. The defendant's attorney, prayed a rule might be granted for security for costs, the plaintiff residing in New York. Moylan, objected, that the motion came too late, after the cause had been marked for trial. 2 But, By the Court: It is never too late to grant the rule, when it will not delay the trial. 3 Rule...
2 U.S. 160 (_) 2 Dall. 160 ROSS et al. Executors versus RITTENHOUSE. Supreme Court of United States. M`KEAN, Chief Justice: This case is, in brief, as follows: The British floop Active had been captured as prize on the high seas, in September, 1778, and was brought into the port of Philadelphia, where she was libelled in the Court of Admiralty of the State, held before George Ross, Esq. the then Judge, on the 18th day of the same month. The four persons, for whose use this action is brought,...
2 U.S. 401 (_) 2 Dall. 401 OSWALD, Administrator, versus the STATE of NEW-YORK. Supreme Court of United States. SUMMONS. In this case the Marshall had returned the writ served; and now Sergeant moved for a distringas, to compel an appearance on the part of the State. *402 While, however, the court held the motion under advisement, it was voluntarily withdrawn, and the suit discontinued. [*] NOTES [*] But see the same suit post, and Grayson versus Virginia.
4 U.S. 120 (_) 4 Dall. 120 Calhoun's Lessee versus Dunning. [(2)] Supreme Court of United States. *121 By the COURT; Blunston's licences have always been deemed valid; and many titles in Pennsylvania depend upon them. The equitable right acquired by the lessor of plaintiff under a licence, has been perfected, by a survey, and patent; so that he clearly possesses a legal title to the land in dispute. On the other hand, the defendant has no office right, but rests his pretensions, on an early...
2 U.S. 286 (_) 2 Dall. 286 LAWSON, Appellant, versus MORRISON, et. al. Appellees. Supreme Court of United States. *287 For the appellant, two propositions were stated, and the corresponding authorities cited: 1st. That the Will of 1777, was a revocation of the Will of 1775, in act, as well as intention, either of which is sufficient. Moore 177. 3 Mod. 260. Dy. 143. Off. of Ex. 20. Swinb. 15. 525. Cowp. 90. God. Or. Leg. 51. 54. Cro. I. 115. 1 Roll. Abr. 614. 2 Eq. Abr. 771. 2d. That the...
2 U.S. 137 (_) 2 Dall. 137 HOOD'S Executors v. NESBIT, et. al. Supreme Court of United States. The cause was argued by Lewis, and Sergeant for the Plaintiffs, and by Wilcocks and Ingersoll for the Defendants. *139 The opinion of the Court was delivered on the 10th of January. M`KEAN, Chief Justice, after stating the material facts, said This is either a deviation or a barratry. The nature of barratry seems now pretty well understood, and we think there ought to appear fraud in the master's...
2 U.S. 409 (_) 2 Dall. 409 HAYBURN'S CASE. Supreme Court of United States. The Attorney General (Randolph) who made the motion for the mandamus, having premised that it was done ex officio, without an application from any particular person, but with a view to procure the execution of an act of Congress, particularly interesting to a meritorious and unfortunate class of citizens, THE COURT declared that they entertained great doubt upon his right, under such circumstances, and in a case of this...
2 U.S. 402 (_) 2 Dall. 402 The STATE of GEORGIA versus BRAISLFORD, et al. Supreme Court of United States. *405 The motion was opposed by Randolph, for the defendants. JOHNSON, Justice. In order to support a motion for an injunction, the bill should set forth a case of probable right, and a probable danger that the right would be defeated, without this special interposition of the court. It does not appear to me, that the present bill sufficiently claims such an interposition. If the State has a...
2 U.S. 194 (_) 2 Dall. 194 CUPISINO versus PEREZ. Supreme Court of United States. *195 Heatly, for the Plaintiff. Moylan, for the defendant. BY THE COURT: It is clear that the captain can hypothecate his vessel only in case of necessity such a necessity as this; that if he did not take up the money, the voyage would be defeated, or at least retarded. This does not appear to have been the case in the present instance. But, in addition to that general rule, it is held, that the captain cannot...
4 U.S. 116 (_) 4 Dall. 116 The Commonwealth versus Dillon. [(1)] Supreme Court of United States. *117 For the Commonwealth, Ingersoll, attorney-general. For the Prisoner, Sergeant and Todd. By the COURT: The fact of the arson is established; and it only remains to decide, whether it was committed by the prisoner The proof against him, depends upon his own confession, slightly corroborated by the testimony of two witnesses. The confession was freely and voluntarily made, was fairly and openly...
2 U.S. 294 (_) 2 Dall. 294 COLLET versus COLLET. Supreme Court of United States. Present WILSON, BLAIR and PETERS, Justices. *296 BY THE COURT: The question, now agitated, depends upon another question; whether the State of Pennsylvania, since the 26th of March 1790 (when the act of Congress was passed) has a right to naturalize an alien And this must receive its answer from the solution of a third question; whether, according to the constitution of the United States, the authority to...
2 U.S. 151 2 Dall. 151 1 L. Ed. 327 Barr v. Craig * Supreme Court of Pennsylvania March Term, 1792 The circumstances of this case were as follow: Henry Banks, of Virginia, wishing to remit a sum of money to James Barr, the plaintiff, requested the defendant (then in Virginia, and to whom Banks was also indebted, in partnership with Preeson Boudoin) to take a charge of an order for L 800 on Mease & Caldwell, of Philadelphia, upon the terms specified in the subjoined receipt, which the defendant...
4 U.S. 237 4 Dall. 237 1 L. Ed. 815 Attorney-General v. The Grantees under the act of April 1792. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. September Term, 1802 ON the 2d of April 1802, an act of the general assembly was passed, entitled 'An Act to settle the controversies arising from contending claims to land, within that part of the territory of this commonwealth north and west of the rivers Ohio and Alleghany , and Conewango creek,' (5 State Laws , 153.) by which the Judges of the Supreme Court were...
