8 U.S. 180 (_) 4 Cranch 180 WOOD v. LIDE. Supreme Court of United States. P.B. Key, for plaintiff in error. *181 The Chief Justice stated that there had been some difference of opinion among the judges, which arose from their not understanding perfectly the facts of the case. If the writ of error had been served when it was not in force, (that is, after its return day,) such service would have been void. But if served while in force, a return afterwards will be good. The service or a writ of...
8 U.S. 177 (_) 4 Cranch 177 VIERS AND WIFE v. MONTGOMERY. Supreme Court of United States. *178 The answer of the defendants denied that the consideration of the deeds was as stated in the bill, and avers that the defendant Patsy, although solicited, always refused to make any promise of marriage to the deceased; that he often pressed her to accept his land, which she for some time declined; that he declared he did not expect any consideration, but wished her to receive it as a gift, and that he...
8 U.S. 48 (_) 4 Cranch 48 THE UNITED STATES v. WILLINGS AND FRANCIS. Supreme Court of United States. *50 Rodney, Attorney General, for the plaintiffs in error. *55 MARSHALL, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court. [*] The single question in this case is, whether an American registered vessel, in part transferred by parol while at sea to an American citizen and resold to the original owners on her return into port, before her entry, does by that operation lose her privileges as an American...
8 U.S. 1 (_) 4 Cranch 1 THE UNITED STATES v. KID AND WATSON. Supreme Court of United States. *2 Rodney, Attorney General. THIS case was certified from the circuit court of the district of Pennsylvania, upon a division of opinion between the judges of that court, upon the question whether certain articles of copper, viz. round copper bars, round copper plates, and round copper plates turned up at the edges, imported by the defendants, were subject to duty, within the meaning of the acts of...
8 U.S. 167 (_) 4 Cranch 167 THE UNITED STATES v. ZEBULON CANTRIL. Supreme Court of United States. *168 MARSHALL, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court that the judgment ought to be arrested, for the reasons assigned in the record, and directed the opinion to be certified accordingly. The same order was made in the case of The United States v. Baylis, for a similar offence. [*] NOTES [*] An act of congress was passed at the session 1806-1807, to amend the law in this respect.
8 U.S. 169 (_) 4 Cranch 169 STHRESHLEY AND OBANNON v. THE UNITED STATES. Supreme Court of United States. *170 H. Marshall, for plaintiffs in error. *171 February 23. MARSHALL, Ch. J. delivered the unanimous opinion of the court, that the power of the officer to collect the outstanding duties ceased upon his removal from office, and devolved upon his successor. A contrary construction would be extremely injurious to the revenues of the United States, and could not have been intended by the...
8 U.S. 62 (_) 4 Cranch 62 SMITH AND OTHERS v. CARRINGTON AND OTHERS. Supreme Court of United States. *65 Robbins, for the plaintiffs in error. *69 February 16. MARSHALL, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court. This case comes up on exceptions to certain opinions given by the judges of the circuit court of Rhode-Island, at the trial of the cause before them. The first exception is to the admission of Peleg Remington as a witness. This exception appeared to be abandoned by the counsel in reply,...
8 U.S. 137 4 Cranch 137 2 L. Ed. 574 SKILLERN'S EXECUTORS v. MAY'S EXECUTORS. February Term, 1807 1 ERROR to the district court of the United States for the district of Kentucky, in chancery. 2 The facts of the case, as they appear upon the record, are as follow: 3 Skillern put into the hands of Richard May several land-warrants to locate in Kentucky, under an agreement that May should have half the land for locating the whole, who accordingly located the quantity of 2,500 acres in the name of...
8 U.S. 29 (_) 4 Cranch 29 RHINELANDER v. THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA. Supreme Court of United States. *30 Hopkinson, for the plaintiff. For the defendants, Rawle and Lewis contended. *40 *41 MARSHALL, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court as follows. The Manhattan, a neutral ship, while prosecuting the voyage insured, was captured by a belligerent cruiser, the second mate and twenty-one of the hands were taken out, and two British officers and fifteen seamen put on board, and she...
8 U.S. 73 (_) 4 Cranch 73 PENDLETON AND WEBB v. WAMBERSIE ET AL. Supreme Court of United States. ERROR to the circuit court for the district of Georgia, in a suit in equity, in which Pendleton and Webb were complainants, against Emanuel Wambersie, James Seagrove, and the representative of James Armstrong, Jacob Weed, and Henry Osborne, were defendants. The bill stated that Henry Osborne, Jacob Weed, James Armstrong, James Seagrove, and the complainant John Webb, on the 22d of December, 1786,...
8 U.S. 60 (_) 4 Cranch 60 ONEALE v. LONG. Supreme Court of United States. *61 P.B. Key, for the plaintiff in error. *62 February 14. MARSHALL, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court. That there was error in this, that the court below did not instruct the jury as prayed by the defendant. He observed, that the judges did not all agree upon the same grounds, some being of opinion that the bonds were void, by reason of the interlineation, and others that they were vacated by the rejection of...
8 U.S. 46 (_) 4 Cranch 46 MONTALET [*] v. MURRAY. Supreme Court of United States. *47 P.B. Key, for defendant in error. The Court was unanimously of opinion that the courts of the United States have no jurisdiction of cases between cliens. Key then suggested that perhaps it did not sufficiently appear upon the record that the original parties to the notes were aliens; But MARSHALL, Ch. J. said, that if it did not appear upon the record that the character of the original parties would support...
8 U.S. 2 (_) 4 Cranch 2 JENNINGS v. CARSON. Supreme Court of United States. *9 E. Tilghman, for appellant. Hare, contra. *20 MARSHALL, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court. The privateer Addition, cruising under a commission granted by the congress of these United States during the war between this country and Great Britain, captured the sloop George, brought her into port, and libelled her in the court of admiralty for the state of New-Jersey, where she was condemned as lawful prize by a...
8 U.S. 172 4 Cranch 172 2 L. Ed. 585 HUMPHREY MARSHALL AND WIFE, v. JAMES CURRIE. February Term, 1807 ERROR to the district court of Kentucky, in a suit in chancery in which the plaintiffs in error were the original complainants. The bill complained that the defendant had obtained an elder patent for land covered by the comnlainants' elder entry, and prayed that the defendant might be compelled to convey to them the legal title. The only question was whether the entry, under which the...
8 U.S. 164 4 Cranch 164 2 L. Ed. 583 HOPKIRK v. BELL February Term, 1807 1 THIS case was again certified from the circuit court for the district of Virginia. 2 It appeared upon the trial, in addition to the facts stated in the former report of the case, * that Andrew Johnston, one of the partners of the house, trading under the firm of Alexander Spiers, John Bowman and Company, of whom the plaintiff is the surviving partner, Came to this country after the treaty of peace in 1783, viz. in the...
8 U.S. 165 (_) 4 Cranch 165 HICKS ET AL. v. ROGERS. Supreme Court of United States. Bradley, (of Vermont,) for the plaintiffs, contended. THIS was a case certified from the circuit court for the district of Vermont, the judges of that court, [*] being opposed in opinion upon the question, whether the plaintiffs, devisees of a tract of land to be equally divided between them, could, under the will, support a joint action of ejectment. The declaration did not set forth the title of the plaintiffs,...
8 U.S. 141 (_) 4 Cranch 141 FRENCH'S EXECUTRIX v. THE BANK OF COLUMBIA. Supreme Court of United States. *143 Harper, for plaintiff in error. *153 MARSHALL, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court. The material question in this case is, whether a person who indorses a promissory note for the accommodation of the drawer, be discharged from the responsibility which the indorsement creates, by the failure of the holder to demand payment of the maker in the usual time, and to give notice to the...
8 U.S. 75 (_) 4 Cranch 75 EX PARTE BOLLMAN AND EX PARTE SWARTWOUT Supreme Court of United States. *76 *77 C. Lee, for Swartwout. Rodney, Attorney General, declined arguing the point on behalf of the United States. Harper, for Bollman. *93 MARSHALL, Ch. J. [*] delivered the opinion of the court, as follows: As preliminary to any investigation of the merits of this motion, this court deems it proper to declare that it disclaims all jurisdiction not given by the constitution, or by the laws of the...
8 U.S. 179 (_) 4 Cranch 179 DIGGS AND KEITH v. WOLCOTT. Supreme Court of United States. *180 The case was argued upon its merits by C. Lee and Swann for the appellants, and by P.B. Key for the appellee. THIS was an appeal from a decree of the circuit court for the district of Connecticut, in a suit in chancery. The appellants, Diggs and Keith, had commenced a suit at law against Alexander Wolcott, the appellee, in the county court for the county of Middlesex, in the state of Connecticut, upon...
