6 U.S. 342 (_) 2 Cranch 342 WINCHESTER v. HACKLEY. [*] Supreme Court of United States. The declaration was for money paid and advanced by the defendant in error for the use of the plaintiff in error. Upon trial of the issue of non assumpsit two bills of exception were taken by the original defendant. The verdict was, for plaintiff 4155 dollars damages. The first bill of exception stated, that the plaintiff below offered in evidence sundry bills of exchange drawn *343 by the defendant upon the...
7 U.S. 193 (_) 3 Cranch 193 WILSON v. CODMAN's EXECUTOR. [*] Supreme Court of United States. *197 E.J. Lee, for plaintiff in error, made the following points. *206 MARSHALL, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court. The first question which presents itself in this case is, was the defendant entitled to oyer of the letters testamentary at the term succeeding that at which the executor was admitted a plaintiff in the cause It is contended, on the part of the defendant, that on the suggestion of...
4 U.S. 320 4 Dall. 320 1 L. Ed. 850 Welsh v. Murray. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. March Term, 1805 1 CASE stated for the opinion of the Court. On the 1st of August 1804, judgment was entered, by confession, at the suit of Ewing v. Murray , in the Common Pleas of Philadelphia county; in which the declaration was entitled of June term preceding. On the 3d of August 1804, judgment was entered, by confession, in the Supreme Court, against the same defendant, at the suit of Welsh , the present...
6 U.S. 406 (_) 2 Cranch 406 THE UNITED STATES v. SCHOONER SALLY OF NORFOLK. Supreme Court of United States. In the district court the vessel and cargo were acquitted on the merits, which decree was, on appeal, affirmed in the circuit court; whereupon the United States sued out the present writ of error. The error assigned was that the cause was of common law, and not of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. But the court, upon the authority of the case of the United States v. La Vengeance, 3...
7 U.S. 73 (_) 3 Cranch 73 THE UNITED STATES v. HOOE, ET AL. [*] Supreme Court of United States. February 23, 1805. *79 Swann, for defendants in error. C. Lee and Swann, contra. *88 Wednesday, February 27. MARSHALL, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court. The first point made in this case, by the attorney for the United States, is, that the deed of the 16th of January, 1799, is fraudulent as to creditors generally. It is not alleged that the consideration was feigned, or that there was any...
6 U.S. 358 (_) 2 Cranch 358 THE UNITED STATES v. FISHER et al. ASSIGNEES OF BLIGHT, A BANKRUPT. [*] Supreme Court of United States. Dallas (attorney of the United States for the district of Pennsylvania) for the plaintiffs in error. *385 MARSHALL, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court. The question in this case is, whether the United States, as holders of a protested bill of exchange, which has been negotiated in the ordinary course of trade, are entitled to be preferred to the general...
7 U.S. 159 3 Cranch 159 2 L. Ed. 397 UNITED STATES v. BENJAMIN MORE. 1 February Term, 1805 ERROR to the circuit court of the district of Columbia, sitting at Washington, upon a judgment in favour of the traverser, on a demurrer to an indictment for taking unlawful fees as a justice of the peace for the county of Washington. The indictment was as follows, viz. 'United States, District of Columbia and County of Washington, to wit. 'The jurors for the United States, for the district of Columbia,...
7 U.S. 187 3 Cranch 187 2 L. Ed. 406 THE MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY OF ALEXANDRIA v. WILSON. * February Term, 1805 THIS was an action of covenant in the circuit court of the district of Columbia, sitting at Alexandria, brought by Wilson, the defendant in error, against the Marine Insurance Company of Alexandria, upon a policy of insurance on the brig George, from Alexandria to Havrede-Grace, &c. One of the clauses in the policy was in the following words, viz. 'If the above vessel, after a...
6 U.S. 407 (_) 2 Cranch 407 TELFAIR et al. EXECUTORS OF RAE & SOMMERVILLE, v. STEAD'S EXECUTORS. Supreme Court of United States. *418 MARSHALL, Ch. J. The only doubt which the court had, was, whether by the laws of Georgia, the land could be made liable unless the heir was a party to the suit. We have received information as to the construction given by the courts of Georgia to the statute of 5 Geo. 2. making lands in the colonies liable for debts, and are satisfied that they are considered as...
6 U.S. 344 (_) 2 Cranch 344 REILY, APPELLANT v. LAMAR, BEALL, AND SMITH, APPELLEES. Supreme Court of United States. *349 E.J. Lee, for appellant. February 6th 1805. The case was now argued by E.J. Lee, and C. Lee, for the appellant, and by Mason for the appellee. [*] *356 Marshall, C.J. delivered the opinion of the court to the following effect: In this case the court has attentively considered the record, proceedings, and evidence. The only equity of the complainant's bill as to Lamar &...
7 U.S. 179 (_) 3 Cranch 179 RAY v. LAW. Supreme Court of United States. C. Lee, for the petitioner, contended, that this was a final decree as to Ray, and cited 2 Fowler's Exchequer Practice, 195, to show, that such a decree would, in England, be considered such a final decree as would authorise an appeal. March 5. MARSHALL, Ch. J. We can do nothing without seeing the record, and the papers offered cannot be considered by us as a record. *180 The court, however, is of opinion, that a decree for...
7 U.S. 92 3 Cranch 92 2 L. Ed. 376 PEYTON v. BROOKE. February 27, 1805 Wednesday, February 27 . 1 THIS case came before the court, upon a bill of exceptions to the opinion of the circuit court of the district of Columbia, for the county of Alexandria, upon a motion for execution on a forthcoming bond, had taken under the act of assembly of Virginia. Revised Code, p. 309. 2 The bond, upon which the motion was made, recites a ca. sa. against Peyton, in favor of Brooke, for 525 dollars, and 624...
4 U.S. 402 4 Dall. 402 1 L. Ed. 884 Penn's Lessce v. Klyne. Circuit Court, Pennsylvania District. October Term, 1805 1 By an act of the General Assembly of Pennsylvania , passed on the 27th day of November 1779 (1 vol. State Laws , 622. Dall. edit. ) the estates of the late proprietaries were vested in the commonwealth, subject to the following proviso: 2 'Sect. 8. Provided also . That all and every the private estates, lands and hereditaments, of any of the said proprietaries, whereof they are...
7 U.S. 220 3 Cranch 220 2 L. Ed. 417 MILLIGAN, ADMINISTRATOR OF MILLIGAN v. MILLEDGE & WIFE. * February Term, 1805 ERROR to the circuit court for the district of Georgia, in chancery sitting. The object of the bill was to recover from the defendants, as legatees and devisees of George Galphin, deceased, a debt due by him to the complainant's intestate, as surviving partner of Clark and Milligan. The bill charges, that Clark and Milligan were merchants in London; that Milligan survived Clark,...
6 U.S. 280 (_) 2 Cranch 280 M'ILVAINE v. COXE'S LESSEE. [ ] Supreme Court of United States. The material facts of the case are stated in the argument of W. Tilghman. W. Tilghman, for plaintiff in error. *284 This case presents three subjects for consideration. 1. What was the situation of Daniel Coxe, with respect to his citizenship or alienage, from the commencement of the Revolution to the definitive treaty of peace between the United States and Great-Britain 2. What was his situation from...
7 U.S. 180 3 Cranch 180 2 L. Ed. 404 LEVY v. GADSBY. February Term, 1805 1 ERROR to the circuit court of the district of Columbia, sitting at Alexandria. 2 This was an action of assumpsit , by Levy, the indorsee of a promissory note, against Gadsby, payee and indorsor of M'Intosh's note. 3 The declaration consisted of three counts. The 1st, in addition to the common averments, alleged, that the plaintiff had brought suit upon the note against M'Intosh, in Maryland, and recovered judgment, but...
7 U.S. 97 (_) 3 Cranch 97 LAMBERT'S LESSEE v. PAINE. Supreme Court of United States. *100 Minor, for the plaintiff, insisted on the following points, viz. *126 The judges now delivered their opinions seriatim JOHNSON, J. This is a writ of error from the circuit court of Virginia to reverse a judgment in ejectment given for the defendant. The circumstances of the case come out on a special verdict, from which it appears, that George Harmer, under whom both parties claim, was a citizen of the...
4 U.S. 392 4 Dall. 392 1 L. Ed. 879 Huidekoper's Lessee v. Douglass. Circuit Court, Pennsylvania District. April Term, 1805 1 THIS was an ejectment brought for a tract of land, lying north and west of the rivers Ohio and Alleghany , and Conewango creek. The lessor of the plaintiff made title under the Holland company, to whom a patent was issued, upon a warrant and survey. The defendant claimed as an actual settler, under the act of the 3d of April 1792. A great many ejectments were depending...
7 U.S. 1 (_) 3 Cranch 1 HUIDEKOPER'S LESSEE v. DOUGLASS. [*] Supreme Court of United States. *10 Dallas, for the plaintiff. M`Kean, (Attorney general of Pennsylvania) contra. *65 MARSHALL, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court as follows: The questions which occurred in this case, in the circuit court of Pennsylvania, and on which the opinion of this court is required, grow out of the act passed by the legislature of that state, entitled "an act for the sale of the vacant lands within this...
7 U.S. 140 (_) 3 Cranch 140 HODGSON v. BUTTS. Supreme Court of United States. *144 E.J. Lee, for plaintiff in error. *155 MARSHALL, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court. This suit was instituted to recover the freight of a vessel of which the plaintiff was a mortgagee. Upon inspecting the deed, which is the foundation of the action, it appears to have been admitted to record, on the oath of only two subscribing witnesses. This suggested the preliminary question, whether a deed of mortgage,...
