5 U.S. 238 (_) 1 Cranch 238 GABRIEL WOOD, ORIGINAL DEFENDANT, v. WILLIAM OWINGS AND JOB SMITH, ASSIGNEES OF WILLIAM ROBB, A BANKRUPT, ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF. Supreme Court of United States. *240 Martin, for the plaintiff in error. Harper, contra. *247 *CHASE, J. The effect of an acknowledgment is to * 248 prevent the grantor from pleading non est factum. Harper. By the law of England acknowledgment is not necessary. By the law of Maryland it is a necessary part of the conveyance, and can no more be...
5 U.S. 194 1 Cranch 194 2 L. Ed. 79 WILSON, plaintiff in error v. LENOX and MAITLAND, defendants in error. February Term, 1803 WRIT of error to the circuit court of the county of Alexandria, in the district of Columbia. This was an action of debt upon a bill of exchange drawn by A. and W. Ramsay on certain merchants in London, upon which the plaintiff in error was indorser. The declaration claimed the amount of the bill with 'damages, interest, and charges of protest.' The verdict of the jury...
5 U.S. 252 (_) 1 Cranch 252 UNITED STATES v. SIMMS. Supreme Court of United States. *253 Mason, attorney for the United States. C. Lee, for the defendant. *255 *Feb. 23d. The Chief Justice delivered the opinion *256 of the court. This is a writ of error to a judgment of the circuit court of the district of Columbia, sitting in the county of Alexandria, in the following case. By an act of the legislature of Virginia a penalty of 150 dollars is imposed on any person who permits certain games,...
5 U.S. 282 (_) 1 Cranch 282 THOMPSON v. JAMESON. Supreme Court of United States. *286 Swann, for the plaintiff in error. E. J Lee and Key, for the defendant. Swann. E.J. Lee, for the defendant in error. *289 The Court gave no opinion upon the other points, but, considering this variance as fatal, Reversed the judgment. The Chief Justice observed, that there was no clause in the declaration stating that Thompson undertook to pay if Hadfield did not, and therefore an action of debt would not lay.
5 U.S. 318 1 Cranch 318 2 L. Ed. 121 The UNITED STATES v. R. T. HOOE and others. February Term, 1803 1 IN this case it was decided, that in appeals and writs of error from the courts of the United States, in the district of Columbia, a statement of facts must accompany the transcript. 2 The act of congress of 27th February 1801, concerning the district of Columbia, directs that writs of error shall be prosecuted in the same manner, under the same regulations, and the same proceedings shall be...
5 U.S. 299 1 Cranch 299 2 L. Ed. 115 STUART v. LAIRD. February Term, 1803 ERROR from the fifth circuit in the Virginia district. A judgment was obtained by the defendant in error, in the court of the United States for the middle circuit, in the Virginia district, in an action instituted in that court in January 1801, for a debt due by the plaintiff in error to him, for and on behalf of Laird and Robertson of Port Glasgow, Great Britain. The middle circuit court in the Virginia district was...
4 U.S. 279 4 Dall. 279 1 L. Ed. 833 Sharpless v. Welsh et al. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. September Term, 1803 1 SCIRE FACIAS against John Welsh, Redman Byrne , and the Bank of the United States , garnishees in a foreign attachment, issued by the plaintiff against M. Moore , of Charleston . The facts were these: Moore , being indebted to several persons in Philadelphia , remitted to Redman Byrne , a bill of exchange, dated the 13th of November 1800, drawn by Joseph Byrne , in favour of...
4 U.S. 269 (_) 4 Dall. 269 Mitchell, Plaintiff in Error, versus Smith. Supreme Court of United States. *271 W. Tilghman, for the plaintiff in error. Rawle, for the defendant in error. ERROR from the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne county; where an action of debt had been brought by Smith, for the use of Cash, against Mitchell, upon a single bill, or sealed note, dated the 11th of March 1796, for 483 dollars and 33 cents, payable in three years with interest. The defendant pleaded payment, with...
4 U.S. 266 (_) 4 Dall. 266 The Mayor, &c. versus Mason. Supreme Court of United States. *267 The exceptions were supported by M'Kean and Porter. But, by the COURT: Some of the objections are insurmountable. In the first place, it is not sufficient to state the evidence; but the magistrate must go on to declare, that the offence was committed, and the defendant thereof convicted. Here, neither the offence, nor the conviction, are to be found in the proceedings. In the next place, we have no...
5 U.S. 332 1 Cranch 332 2 L. Ed. 126 Marine Insurance Company of Alexandria v. JAMES YOUNG. February Term, 1803 1 In this case it was held, that an action of assumpsit could not be brought in a policy of insurance under seal; and the defect is not cured by verdict.
5 U.S. 137 (_) 1 Cranch 137 WILLIAM MARBURY v. JAMES MADISON, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE UNITED STATES. Supreme Court of United States. *153 Opinion of the Court. At the last term on the affidavits then read and filed with the clerk, a rule was granted in this case, requiring the secretary of state to show cause why a mandamus *154 *should not issue, directing him to deliver to William Marbury his commission as a justice of the peace for the county of Washington, in the district of Columbia. No...
5 U.S. 290 (_) 1 Cranch 290 MANDEVILLE AND JAMESON v. JOSEPH RIDDLE AND CO. Supreme Court of United States. *291 E.J. Lee and Swann, for the plaintiffs in error. Simms, for the defendants. *E.J. Lee. *292 Simms, contra. Swann, in reply. *297 Marshall, Chief Justice. It is decided in Virginia that an action is maintainable by the assignee against the assignor, and not under the act of assembly. *298 *February 26th. The Chief Justice delivered the opinion of the court. *298 "The only question in...
5 U.S. 365 (_) 1 Cranch 365 LLOYD v. ALEXANDER ET AL. Supreme Court of United States. MARSHALL, Ch. J. The law respecting the thirty * 366 days notice on a writ of error, and the ten days allowed for filing it, was predicated upon the existing state of things at the time of passing the act; at which time there was no circuit court whose term would not be finished more than forty days before the setting of the supreme court. *366 The times of the session of the courts have been altered, but no...
5 U.S. 343 (_) 1 Cranch 343 LINDO v. GARDNER. Supreme Court of United States. *344 Peacock, for the plaintiff in error. THIS was an action of debt brought by the administrators of Archibald Gardner against Abraham Lindo, upon a promissory note, in the circuit court of the district of Columbia, sitting in Washington. The act of congress respecting the district of Columbia had adopted the laws of Maryland as the law of this part of the district. In Maryland the statute of 3 and 4 Anne, c. 9....
4 U.S. 274 (_) 4 Dall. 274 Kingston versus Girard. Supreme Court of United States. Lewis and Hare, for the plaintiff. Ingersoll and Rawle, for the defendant. By the COURT: If the vessel, after her release, remained at Martinique, to which she was carried by the captor, longer than was necessary to prepare for her voyage, and for the purpose of trading, it was a deviation; and the policy is void. Whether the extraordinary expense incurred for seamen's wages, provisions, &c. during the detention...
4 U.S. 370 (_) 4 Dall. 370 Humphries v. Blight's Assignees. Supreme Court of United States. Hare and Dallas argued for the plaintiff. *371 Rawle argued for the defendants. By the COURT: 1st. We have no doubt upon the right of the assignee of the note in this case, to prove the debt under the commission, and to receive a dividend. The certificate of the bankrupt, would be a bar to a recovery, in an action by the present holder of the note against him; and wherever a certificate will be a bar,...
5 U.S. 214 (_) 1 Cranch 214 HOOE & CO. v. GROVERMAN. Supreme Court of United States. *220 Swann and Simms, for the plaintiffs in error. C. Lee and E.J. Lee, for the defendant. *229 Feb. 23. The Chief Justice delivered the opinion of the court. This is a writ of error to a judgment rendered in the circuit court of the district of Columbia, sitting in Alexandria, on the following case. A charter-party was entered into between the parties on the tenth day of April, 1798, whereby Groverman let to...
5 U.S. 345 1 Cranch 345 2 L. Ed. 130 HODGSON v. DEXTER. February Term, 1803 AN action of covenant was instituted in the circuit court of the county of Washington in the district of Columbia, against the defendant, late secretary at war, by the plaintiff, who was the owner and lessor of a house in the city of Washington, and which was by him leased to the defendant, Mr. Dexter, for the purposes of the war department. The buildings were destroyed by fire, and the plaintiff claimed to recover the...
5 U.S. 321 (_) 1 Cranch 321 HEPBURN AND DUNDAS v. COLIN AULD. Supreme Court of United States. *323 Swann, for the plaintiffs in error. E.J. Lee, contra. Mason, in reply. *329 The Chief Justice, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court. To entitle themselves to the money for which this suit was instituted, it is incumbent on the plaintiffs to show that they have performed the very act, on the performance of which the money became payable; or that they are excused by the conduct...
5 U.S. 309 (_) 1 Cranch 309 THOMAS HAMILTON v. JAMES RUSSEL. Supreme Court of United States. *310 *Swann, for the plaintiff in error. Simms, for the defendant in error. *313 Chase, Justice. There is here no exception applicable to this case. The bill of exceptions states only an abstract question. It is not whether the plaintiff in this case can maintain an action of trespass, but whether any plaintiff can maintain trespass for property loaned to a friend. *314 *Swann, in reply, Relied on the...
