2 U.S. 270 (_) 2 Dall. 270 VASSE versus BALL. Supreme Court of United States. *273 The defence was supported by Lewis, E. Tilghman & Rawle on three grounds. M`KEAN, Chief Justice. The same difficulty, that occurred in the case of Bernardi v. Motteux, Doug. 555, certainly occurs in the present case: how is the ground of condemnation to be ascertained The libel asserts in one place, that the property *274 is French; in another place, that it is American; and the several statements, that the...
2 U.S. 370 28 F. Cas. 377 2 Dall. 370 1 L. Ed. 419 The United States v. Villato Circuit Court, Pennsylvania District April Term, 1797 1 The defendant had been committed by the District Judge, on a charge of High Treason against the United States, and on the return to a Habeas Corpus, issued under the act of Pennsylvania (2 Vol. Dall. Edit. p. ) it appeared, that he had entered on board of a French privateer 'in parts out of the territory of the United States, and that, having so entered, he...
4 U.S. 329 (_) 4 Dall. 329 Smythe versus Banks. Supreme Court of United States. By the COURT. The witness is, undoubtedly, privileged from arrest, for a reasonable time, to prepare for his departure, and return to his home, as well as during his actual attendance upon the Court. But the privilege does not extend throughout the term, at which the cause is marked for trial; nor will it protect him while the witness is engaged in transacting his general private business, after he is discharged...
2 U.S. 277 (_) 2 Dall. 277 M`CARTY versus EMLEN. Supreme Court of United States. On the 24th of January 1795, E. Tilghman & Wilcocks, for the defendant. M`KEAN, Chief Justice. The question in this cause, is whether the debt due from Emlen to the late partnership of M`Carty & Cummings, has been secured by the foreign attachment, in favor of M`Carty's separate creditor, or can only be discharged by a payment to the surviving partner Two objections are urged against the claim under the...
2 U.S. 381 (_) 2 Dall. 381 MAXWELL'S Lessee versus LEVY. Supreme Court of United States. After argument by M. Levy, for the plaintiff, and by W. Tilghman, for the defendant, IREDELL, Justice, delivered the opinion of the Court, in which the conveyance to the lessor of the plaintiff was considered as entirely colorable and collusive; and, therefore, incapable of laying a foundation for the jurisdiction of the Court. The rule made absolute.
4 U.S. 330 (_) 4 Dall. 330 Maxfield's Lessee versus Levy [(1)] . The Same versus The Same. Supreme Court of United States. IREDELL, Justice. A motion was made for a rule to show cause, why these ejectments should not be dismissed, upon an allegation that it appeared, by an answer to a bill in equity, for a discovery in this court, brought by the defendants in these ejectments, against the lessor of the plaintiff, that they are in reality the suits of a citizen of this state (viz. Samuel Wallis)...
3 U.S. 336 (_) 3 Dall. 336 JENNINGS et al. Plaintiffs in Error, versus the Brig PERSEVERANCE, et al. Supreme Court of United States. Du Ponceau and Robbins, for the Defendant in error. E. Tilghman, for the Plaintiff in error. *337 PATERSON, Justice Though I was silent on the occasion, I concurred in opinion with Judge Wilson upon the second rule laid down in Wiscart v. D'Auchy; and, of course, the court were divided, four to two, upon the decision. I thought, indeed, that excluding a...
3 U.S. 339 (_) 3 Dall. 339 HUGER et al. versus SOUTH CAROLINA. Supreme Court of United States. *341 IREDELL and CHASE, Justices. Expressed some doubt, whether shewing the original to the Secretary of State, would *342 have been a service of the process, conformably to the rule, without leaving a copy at the Governor's house: but they agreed with the rest of THE COURT, in deeming the service, under the present circumstances, to be sufficient in strictness of construction, as well as upon...
3 U.S. 371 (_) 3 Dall. 371 HAMILTON versus MOORE. Supreme Court of United States. *374 Ingersoll and Dallas, for the Defendant in error. *377 But, THE COURT observed, that there was no error in point of fact; nor any clerical error to amend. The writ bears the date when it was actually sued out and lodged in the office: there is, therefore, nothing on the record, by which it can be amended; and the objection is fatal. The Writ of Error was, therefore, non-prossed.
3 U.S. 357 (_) 3 Dall. 357 FENEMORE, Plaintiff in Error, versus The UNITED STATES. Supreme Court of United States. *360 The cause was argued at the last term, upon an issue joined, after an assignment of the general errors, and the plea of in nullo est erratum, by Ingersoll and E. Tilghman, for the Plaintiff in error, and by Lee (the Attorney General) for the United States. *363 On the 7th of August 1787, the Judges delivered their opinions to the following effect: CHASE, Justice. The judgment...
3 U.S. 342 3 Dall. 342 1 L. Ed. 628 Clerke, Plaintiff in Error v. Harwood. February Term 1797 3 U.S. 342 3 Dall. 342 1 L. Ed. 628 Clerke, Plaintiff in Error 1 v. 2 Harwood. February Term 1797 3 This was a writ of Error to the High Court of Appeals, of the State of Maryland, to remove the proceedings in a cause, involving a construction of the treaty of peace between the United States and Great Britain, which that Court had decided against the title claimed under the Treaty, by reversing and...
2 U.S. 280 2 Dall. 280 1 L. Ed. 381 Camberling v. M'Call Supreme Court of Pennsylvania December Term, 1797 1 This was an action on the case, on a Policy of Insurance dated the 28th of October 1786, on the schooner John, Nathaniel Simmons master, on a voyage from Bath, or Washington, in North Carolina, to the Island of St. Thomas. It was a valued policy, in which the Plaintiff's moiety of the Schooner was valued at L 300; and the action was brought for a total loss. 2 The cause was first tried...
3 U.S. 344 3 Dall. 344 1 L. Ed. 629 Brown v. Van Braam. August Term, 1797 1 Error from the Circuit Court, for the District of Rhode Island. The case was as follows: On the 10th of March, 1792, Brown and Francis, merchants, of Providence, in Rhode Island, drew four sets of bills of exchange on Thomas Dickason and Co. merchants, of London, payable at 365 days sight, to Benjamin Page, or order, for the aggregate sum of L. 3000 sterling. Page being at Canton on the 28th of March, 1793, endorsed...
3 U.S. 365 (_) 3 Dall. 365 BROWN Plaintiff in Error, versus BARRY. Supreme Court of United States. *366 From the judgment of the Circuit Court, the present writ of error was brought, a variety of exceptions were taken to the record, and after argument by Lee, Attorney General, for the Plaintiff in error, and by E. Tilghman, for the Defendant, the opinion of THE COURT was delivered by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, in the following terms. *367 ELSWORTH, Chief Justice. In delivering the opinion of the court,...
2 U.S. 382 2 Dall. 382 1 L. Ed. 425 Anonymous Circuit Court, Pennsylvania District April Term, 1797 2 U.S. 382 2 Dall. 382 1 L. Ed. 425 Anonymous Circuit Court, Pennsylvania District April Term, 1797 1 In a cause marked for trial by Special Jury, nine Jurors only appeared; and the question arose, whether the Court (who wished to consider it with a view to establish a precedent) could award a tales, on the application of the Plaintiff. 2 Levy and Ingersoll suggested, that the Supreme Court of...
