6 U.S. 9 (_) 2 Cranch 9 WOOD v. WAGNON. Supreme Court of United States. The judgment was reversed, because it did not appear upon the record that the circuit court had jurisdiction of the case. The proceedings stated, that "the petition of John "Peter Wagnon, a citizen of the state of Pennsylvania, "sheweth, "That James Wood, of the state of Georgia," &c. The objection taken was, that it did not appear that the plaintiff and defendant were citizens of different states, and on that ground the...
6 U.S. 9 (_) 2 Cranch 9 WILLIAMS AND HODGSON v. LYLES. Supreme Court of United States. Youngs, for defendant in error. The execution, upon which the bond was taken, was for "143 dollars and 67 cents, also twelve dollars, thirty-three *10 "cents, and 355 pounds of tobacco at the rate "of 13 shillings and 4 pence per cwt." The recital of the execution in the bond stated it to be for "143 dollars "67 cents, also twenty dollars thirty-three cents, "and 355 pounds of tobacco at the rate of 13...
4 U.S. 389 (_) 4 Dall. 389 Walker et al. v. Smith. Supreme Court of United States. *390 For the plaintiffs, J. Sergeant and Dallas contended. The COURT, in their charge to the jury, expressly declared an opinion, that, on the evidence, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the full amount of the original debt, with such reasonable compensation for the delay of payment, as the jury should think proper. The jury, however, gave a verdict for only 468 dollars 44 cents, which was the amount of the...
4 U.S. 372 4 Dall. 372 1 L. Ed. 871 The United States v. Thomas Passmore. Circuit Court, Pennsylvania District. April Term, 1804 1 THE defendant, who had become bankrupt, was prosecuted by indictment, containing two counts, for perjury, in swearing before the commissioners, on the 20th day of September 1803, that he 'could not tell exactly the time, but believed it was the latter [end] of 1799, that he first owned the brig Abigail . He ceased to own her, he rather though, in the year 1800,'...
6 U.S. 33 (1804) 2 Cranch 33 PENNINGTON v. COXE. Supreme Court of United States. February 22, 1804. *36 Ingersoll, for plaintiff in error. Lincoln, attorney-general of the U.S. and Dallas for defendant in error. *51 MARSHALL, Chief Justice, delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case a single point is presented to the court. The plaintiff in error was a refiner of sugar, in the city of Philadelphia, and had a large quantity of refined sugars in his refinery, on the 1st of July, 1802. In...
6 U.S. 272 2 Cranch 272 2 L. Ed. 276 OGDEN, administrator of CORNELL v. BLACKLEDGE, executor of SALTER. February Term, 1804 THIS case came before the court on a certificate of a division of the judges of the circuit court of the district of North Carolina. The certificate set forth: 'United States of America, North Carolina district. 'At a circuit court of the United States, begun and held at Raleigh for the district of North Carolina, on Wednesday the twenty-ninth of December, in the year of...
6 U.S. 64 (1804) 2 Cranch 64 ALEXANDER MURRAY, Esq. v. SCHOONER CHARMING BETSY. Supreme Court of United States. February 22, 1804. *70 The cause was argued at last term, by Martin, Key, and Mason for the claimant. No counsel was present for the libellant. *115 Marshall, Chief Justice, delivered the opinion of the court: The Charming Betsy was an American built vessel, belonging to citizens of the United States, and sailed from Baltimore, under the name of the Jane, on the 10th of April, 1800,...
4 U.S. 298 4 Dall. 298 1 L. Ed. 841 Maybin, surviving partner, &c. v. Coulon. (a) Coulon v. Maybin, surviving partner, &c. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. March Term, 1804 THESE actions having been referred, the referees reported that there was due, in the first, from the defendant to the plaintiff, as surviving partner of Joseph Anthony and Co. a sum of 30,708 16/100 dollars; and that in the second there was no cause of action. To this report, Coulon filed a number of exceptions, of which it is...
6 U.S. 240 (1804) 2 Cranch 240 WILLIAM MASON AND OTHERS, LIBELLANTS. v. SHIP BLAIREAU. Supreme Court of United States. March 6, 1804. *248 The case was now argued by Harper for the owners of the Blaireau, for Christie & Young and for the apprentices by Hollingsworth, attorney of the United States for Maryland district, for the libellants generally by Martin, attorney-general of Maryland, for Jackson the owner, and Mason the master, of the Firm, and for the owners of the Blaireau and by S....
6 U.S. 170 (1804) 2 Cranch 170 LITTLE ET AL. v. BARREME ET AL. Supreme Court of United States. February 27, 1804. *176 The cause was argued at December term 1801, by Dexter for the appellants, and by Martin and Mason for the claimants. MARSHALL, Chief Justice, now delivered the opinion of the Court. The Flying-Fish a Danish vessel having on board Danish and neutral property, was captured on the 2d of December 1799, on a voyage from Jeremie to St. Thomas's, by the United States frigate Boston,...
4 U.S. 95 4 Dall. 95 1 L. Ed. 756 Lea, Executrix, et al. v. Yard. Hazlehurst et al. v. Dallas, Secretary of the Commonwealth. High Court of Errors and Appeals of Pennsylvania. January Session, 1804 1 ERROR from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania . These actions depended, chiefly, on the same facts, and principles; and were argued together, both in the Supreme Court, and in this Court. The facts were these: 2 John Chaloner was appointed an auctioneer for the city of Philadelphia , on the 1st of...
4 U.S. 387 (_) 4 Dall. 387 Hurst's Case. Supreme Court of United States. *388 WASHINGTON, Justice. I will not examine the powers of the Supreme Court of the state, upon the present occasion. It is enough to assertain, that the power of this Court is competent to the object proposed. If, indeed, any injury would be done either to the plaintiff in the suit, or to the sheriff (both of whom have acted innocently, and without knowledge of the facts, on which the claim of privilege arises) by our...
6 U.S. 127 (1804) 2 Cranch 127 HEAD & AMORY v. THE PROVIDENCE INSURANCE COMPANY. Supreme Court of United States. February 25, 1804. *136 The case was now argued by J.Q. Adams, of Massachusetts, and Mason attorney for the district of Columbia, on behalf of the plaintiffs in error; and by Hunter, of Rhode-Island, and Martin, attorney-general, of Maryland, for the defendants. Adams, for the plaintiffs in error. *163 MARSHALL, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court. This is a declaration on a...
6 U.S. 10 (1804) 2 Cranch 10 FAW v. MARSTELLER. [*] Supreme Court of United States. February 14, 1804. The circuit court decreed, that the rents which accrued during the existence of paper money should be reduced according to the scale for the time when they became payable, but that the subsequent rents should be paid in specie. From this decree Faw appealed, and the case was now argued by Swann and Mason for the appellant; and by E.J. Lee, Jones, and Key, for the appellee. For the appellant,...
6 U.S. 180 (1804) 2 Cranch 180 DUNLOP v. BALL. Supreme Court of United States. February 28, 1804. *181 E.J. LEE, for plaintiffs in error. *183 MARSHALL, Ch. J. There can be no doubt of this fact. The only difficulty is to shew that it requires 20 years after the removal of the impediments, to create the presumption of payment. It may be a doubt, whether the same time after the removal of the impediments, is necessary to raise the presumption, as if the bond had borne date at the time of such...
4 U.S. 308 (_) 4 Dall. 308 Duncanson versus M`Lure. Supreme Court of United States. *311 In relation to these points, the plaintiff's counsel contended. *314 The COURT delivered a long and elaborate charge to the jury, on the two principal points in the cause. 1st. They expressed considerable doubt, whether the condemnation of the Mount Vernon was pronounced by a competent Court; inasmuch as the ship was not within the jurisdiction of the country of the captors; as the evidence did not...
4 U.S. 300 4 Dall. 300 1 L. Ed. 842 Deshler v. Beery. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. March Term, 1804 1 THIS was an action of dower, by the widow of David Deshler , against the tenant of the premises, tried at Easton. Northampton county, the 27th of June 1804. 2 In point of fact, it appeared, that Lesher died, leaving a will, dated the 2d of November 1796, in which he bequeathed to his wife a legacy of 1000 l. , his household goods, and a house for lief; and appointed her executrix, and Neuhart...
4 U.S. 303 (_) 4 Dall. 303 Commonwealth versus Matlack. Supreme Court of United States. M`Kean, attorney-general, for the commonwealth. Dallas, for the defendant. But, after argument, the COURT declared, that the defendant could not indirectly recover from the state, a substantive, independent, claim by way of set-off, any more than he could directly recover a debt due from the state, by bringing a suit against her. That the present action was brought to compel an account for money received for...
4 U.S. 316 4 Dall. 316 1 L. Ed. 849 Commonwealth v. Franklin et al. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. December Term, 1804 1 THE general question, upon the constitutionality of the intrusion act (3 State Laws , 703. Dall. edit. ) having been decided at the last term, in the affirmative, this case came again before the Court, upon the remaining exceptions in arrest of judgment, as they are stated ante, p. 257.; but the counsel for the defendants abandoned the third and fourth, and the argument and...
6 U.S. 187 (1804) 2 Cranch 187 CHURCH v. HUBBART. Supreme Court of United States. March 5, 1804. *198 Stockton, for plaintiff in error. Adams, for defendant. *232 MARSHALL, C.J. delivered the opinion of the court. If in this case the court had been of opinion, that the circuit court had erred in its construction of the policies, which constitute the ground of action; that is, if we had conceived that the defence set up, would have been insufficient, admitting it to have been clearly made out in...
