4 U.S. 358 4 Dall. 358 1 L. Ed. 865 The United States v. Coyngham et al. Circuit Court, Pennsylvania District. May Term, 1802 1 THIS cause came before the Court, on a case stated for their opinion, in the following terms: 2 'At the term of September 1798, judgment was obtained in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania , at the suit of John Travis et al. v. Francis and John West , for 1365 l. 3 s. 9 d. debt. and 6 d. costs. 3 'A fieri facias issued under the said judgment, returnable to December term...
4 U.S. 234 (_) 4 Dall. 234 Levy versus The Bank of the United States. Supreme Court of United States. *236 Ingersoll, E. Tilghman, M`Kean, and Dallas, for the plaintiff. Rawle, and Lewis, for the defendants. The COURT delivered a charge to the jury decidedly in favour of the plaintiff; the Chief Justice declaring, that he thought any attempt to distinguish between a credit in the bank book of a customer, and an actual cash payment, as impolitic on the part of the bank, as it was unjust towards...
4 U.S. 360 (_) 4 Dall. 360 Knox et al. versus Greenleaf. Supreme Court of United States. *361 For the plaintiffs, it was contended, by Moylan. For the defendant, it was contended, by Ingersoll and Dallas. *362 The COURT were clearly of opinion, that the defendant was entitled to be considered as a citizen of Pennsylvania; and the jury found a verdict accordingly. Verdict for the defendant.
4 U.S. 246 (_) 4 Dall. 246 Jones et al. versus The Insurance Company of North-America. Supreme Court of United States. *247 Dallas, for the plaintiffs. Ingersoll, E. Tilghman, and Moylan, for the defendants. The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court (all the Judges being present) in the charge to the jury. SHIPPEN, Chief Justice. There is no direct judicial authority in the books, upon the case now before the Court. The case must, therefore, be decided either upon principle,...
4 U.S. 232 (_) 4 Dall. 232 Falconer versus Montgomery et al. Supreme Court of United States. *233 M. Levy, and Franklin, for the plaintiff. Ingersoll, Moylan, and Hopkinson, for the defendants. By the COURT: The case of Hall v. Lawrence was decided in 1792. It is not, therefore, binding upon us, as an authority; and, upon principle, we cannot accede to the decision. The plainest dictates of natural justice, must prescribe to every tribunal, the law, that "no man shall be condemned unheard." It...
4 U.S. 253 (_) 4 Dall. 253 The Commonwealth versus Gibbs. Supreme Court of United States. *254 Reed and Dickerson, for the commonwealth. *255 The COURT delivered a full and decided opinion, in the charge to the Jury, that the questions, proposed by the judges of the election, were illegal; that Mr. Beckly could not, therefore, be considered in the execution of his duty, when he insisted upon an answer to those questions; and that, consequently, the defendant was not liable to an indictment,...
4 U.S. 255 (_) 4 Dall. 255 The Commonwealth versus Franklin et al. Supreme Court of United States. *258 The case was opened, and argued, by Duncan, for the commonwealth. *265 BRACKENRIDGE, Justice. The second count in the indictment, is founded upon the second section of the act of assembly; and the special verdict finds expressly, that the defendants did conspire for the purpose mentioned in that section. The purpose was, "to lay out townships in the county of Luzerne, by persons "not...
4 U.S. 250 (_) 4 Dall. 250 Cochran et al. versus Cummings. Supreme Court of United States. Ingersoll, and Heatly, for the plaintiffs. M. Levy, and Porter, for the defendant. By SHIPPEN, Chief Justice: Wherever there is a gross misrepresentation of facts, relating to the subject of a contract, the contract is fraudulent and void. If, therefore, the jury shall be of opinion, that such a misrepresentation was made, in the present instance; they should consider the conveyance as no payment,...
4 U.S. 76 (_) 4 Dall. 76 Burd, Plaintiff in Error, versus Smith, Lessee of Fitzsimons et al. Supreme Court of United States. *80 The cause was argued, in this Court, during the 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15th of January 1802, by Ingersoll, Lewis, and M`Kean, for the plaintiff in error; and by M. Levy, Rawle, and Dallas, for the defendants in error. *86 The Court, after taking time to deliberate, delivered opinions, seriatim, on the 20th of January 1802; of which the following is given as a general...
