2 U.S. 297 (_) 2 Dall. 297 The UNITED STATES versus RAVARA. Supreme Court of United States. Present, WILSON, IREDELL and PETERS, Justices. *298 WILSON, Justice. I am of opinion, that although the Constitution vests in the Supreme Court an original jurisdiction, in cases like the present, it does not preclude the Legislature from exercising the power of vesting a concurrent jurisdiction, in such inferior Courts, as might by law be established: And as the Legislature has expressly declared, that...
4 U.S. 127 (_) 4 Dall. 127 The Bank of North-America versus Pettit. Supreme Court of United States. *128 It was argued by Tilghman and Lewis, for the plaintiff. *129 By the COURT: The defence is want of notice of the protest of the note in question, within a reasonable time. The law in England is very strict upon this subject. Before any statute existed there, to render promissory notes negotiable, such notes were often made; but they were only regarded as evidence of a debt, and could not, as...
4 U.S. 130 (_) 4 Dall. 130 Stansbury versus Marks. Supreme Court of United States. By the COURT: The evidence is clearly admissible. Under the general issue, however, the jury may decide, whether the evidence is sufficient to discharge him, or not. The position is generally true, that an infant can only bind himself for necessaries; yet, in the Court of Chancery, cases occur, in which a payment would be decreed, contrary to the strict rule of the common law. In this form of action, equity is...
2 U.S. 213 (_) 2 Dall. 213 SHOEMAKER, Assignee versus KEELY. Supreme Court of United States. The defendant's Counsel (Rawle), observed. The plaintiff's Counsel (M. Levy) answered. *214 BY THE COURT: It is plain, that the action, in its present form, cannot be supported. Under the act of Assembly, nothing but debts are assigned, or assignable; and torts must be considered as the mere personal concern of the bankrupt. Let Judgment be entered for the defendant.
2 U.S. 197 (_) 2 Dall. 197 RESPUBLICA versus KEPPELE. Supreme Court of United States. THE COURT were unanimously of opinion, that the indenture, in this case, was void, and gave their opinions seriatim. The opinion of Justice BRADFORD, (which is all I have in my notes) entered fully into the principles of the decision as follows. *198 BRADFORD. Justice: The imprisonment of this infant, if justified at all, must be supported under the Act of 1700, respecting servants; so that the only question...
2 U.S. 196 (_) 2 Dall. 196 PLEASANTS, Adm'tor, versus PEMBERTON, Adm'trix. Supreme Court of United States. *197 Ingersoll, for the plaintiff. M`KEAN, Chief Justice. The general expression in Walton & Shelley must be limited as explained in 3 Term. 33. 6. and, therefore, since the witness is disinterested, he must be admitted. Besides, he is not to contradict the writing, or deny any thing that is in it.
2 U.S. 415 (_) 2 Dall. 415 OSWALD, Administrator, versus the STATE of NEW-YORK. Supreme Court of United States. PROCLAMATION was made in this cause, "that any person having authority to appear for the State of New-York is required to appear accordingly;" and no person appearing it was ordered, on motion of Coxe for the Plaintiff, BY THE COURT: Unless the State appears by the first day of next Term to the above suit, or shew cause to the contrary, judgment will be entered by default against...
2 U.S. 300 (_) 2 Dall. 300 LIVINGSTON et al. versus SWANWICK. Supreme Court of United States. Lewis, Rawle, Randolph & Dallas for the plaintiffs. E. Tilghman, Ingersoll, Wilcocks and Serjeant for the defendant. [*] But, BY THE COURT: The witness is competent to prove every part of the transaction. He is not interested in the event of the suit; nor can the verdict, in this case, be given in evidence, upon the trial of the action for his commissions. Anderson was a known, established, Broker;...
2 U.S. 415 (_) 2 Dall. 415 The STATE OF GEORGIA versus BRAILSFORD, et al. Supreme Court of United States. IREDELL, Justice. It is my misfortune to dissent from the opinion entertained by the rest of the court upon the present occasion; but I am bound to decide, according to the dictates of my own judgment. The State of Georgia complains, that having a right to the debt in question, that right has been discussed and over-ruled without giving her an opportunity to be heard in support of it,...
2 U.S. 214 2 Dall. 214 1 L. Ed. 354 Fox's Lessee v. Palmer, et al. * Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1793 1 On the trial of this ejectment, the subscribing witnesses were offered to prove, that a deed, bearing date the 1st of April, 1784, was not, in fact, executed until the month of November following. It was objected, that such proof would contradict the attestation of the witnesses themselves. 4 Burr. 2224. 2 Esp. 194. 2 By the Court: A subscribing witness attests nothing but the...
2 U.S. 215 (_) 2 Dall. 215 FITZGERALD versus CALDWELL. Supreme Court of United States. M`KEAN, Chief Justice. It is clearly the general rule that a garnishee is not liable for interest, while he is restrained from the payment of his debt, by the legal operation of a foreign attachment. But it is said by the plaintiff's Counsel, and I assent to the proposition, that if there is any fraud, or collusion; say, if there is any unreasonable delay occasioned by the conduct *216 of the garnishee...
4 U.S. 133 (_) 4 Dall. 133 Eddowes et al. versus T. Niell. Supreme Court of United States. *134 Tilghman, and Bowie, for the plaintiffs. Ingersoll, Smith, and Duncan, for the defendant. By the COURT: Letters of credit are a common, and useful, instrument in the course of commerce. They are, however, of a very serious nature; and the writer is bound to comply with the contents, according to their genuine and honest import. In order to render them obligatory as a contract, it is not necessary,...
4 U.S. 130 (_) 4 Dall. 130 J. Conrad versus Conrad et al. Administrators of G. Conrad. Supreme Court of United States. *131 C. Hall, C. Smith, and Hartly, for the plaintiff. J. Smith, Duncan, and Tilghman, for the defendant. By the COURT: This is an action to recover damages, for the non-conveyance of 100 acres of land, agreeably to an express promise of the intestate; with respect to which the evidence certainly supports the declaration. Considering, however, the relation of the parties, the...
2 U.S. 419 (_) 2 Dall. 419 CHISHOLM, Ex'r. versus GEORGIA. Supreme Court of United States. Upon which Mr. Randolph, the Attorney General of the United States, as counsel for the plaintiff. *429 IREDELL, Justice. This great cause comes before the Court, on a motion made by the Attorney-General, that an order be made by this Court to the following effect: "That, unless "the State of Georgia shall, after reasonable notice of this motion, "cause an appearance to be entered on behalf of the "said...
2 U.S. 199 (_) 2 Dall. 199 BARNES'S Lessee, versus IRWIN, et al. Supreme Court of United States. *200 The case was argued on the 19th of January, 1792, by Bankson and Rawle for the plaintiff, and Wilcocks and Serjeant for the defendants. THE COURT then desired the following points might be further considered. *201 1st. How far the case of Rippin v. Dawdin, is shaken by Hodsdon v. Lloyd. 2 Brown. Ch. Ca. 544. 2d. How far the difference between a devise to children as in Rippin v. Dawdin, and a...
2 U.S. 479 2 Dall. 479 Appointment of PATERSON August Term, 1793. 1 The Court being met, a commission appointing William Paterson, one of the Justices, bearing date the 4th of March, 1793, was read; and he was qualified according to law. * * Judge Paterson's appointment was in the room of Mr. Justice Johnson, who had resigned. The Malignant Fever, which during this year, raged in the City of Philadelphia, dispersed the great body of its inhabitants, and proved fatal to thousands, interrupted,...
