8 U.S. 384 4 Cranch 384 2 L. Ed. 655 YOUNG v. THE BANK OF ALEXANDRIA. February Term, 1808 ERROR to the circuit court for the district of Columbia, sitting at Alexandria. C. Simms , for the defendant in error, having obtained a rule on the plaintiff in error , to show cause why the writ of error should not be quashed, Roungs, E. J. Lee , and Jones , now showed cause; and read a printed paper produced by the other side, purporting to be the act of assembly of Virginia, of 1792, incorporating the...
8 U.S. 239 (_) 4 Cranch 239 YOUNG v. PRESTON. Supreme Court of United States. Upon the opening of the case, This Court, without argument, reversed the judgment. *240 On a subsequent day, C. Simms, one of the counsel for the defendant in error, not having been present at the opening of the case, was permitted by the court to cite authorities in support of the opinion of the court below, and cited the following: Towers v. Barrett, 1 T.R. 133. where it was decided that assumpsit for money had and...
8 U.S. 237 (_) 4 Cranch 237 WOODS & BEMIS v. YOUNG. Supreme Court of United States. *238 The case was submitted to the court without argument, by Swann, for the plaintiffs, and Youngs, for the defendant. By the Court. The question is, whether a refusal to continue a cause can be assigned for error. The impression of the court is, that it cannot. Has the party, by law, a right to a continuance in any case If he has, it will have weight. Is it not merely a matter of favour and discretion This...
8 U.S. 333 (_) 4 Cranch 333 THE UNITED STATES v. GURNEY AND OTHERS. Supreme Court of United States. *336 E. Tilghman, for the defendants. *341 MARSHALL, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court as follows, viz. This case comes on upon a special demurrer to a replication filed by the plaintiffs to a plea of payment after the day. The replication is double, and consequently ill. But it is a known rule that a demurrer brings all the pleadings before the court; in consequence of which, judgment...
8 U.S. 216 (_) 4 Cranch 216 THE UNITED STATES v. THE BRIG UNION, THE SLOOP SALLY AND CARGO, AND THE SLOOP DEBORAH AND CARGO. Supreme Court of United States. *217 Rodney, Attorney General, contra. MARSHALL, Ch. J. The appraisement is not conclusive evidence of the value, but in this case it is the best evidence. It was made by officers of the court under its order, and was regularly returned and filed. It does not impeach the credibility of the witness now examined, for the value is a matter...
8 U.S. 443 4 Cranch 443 2 L. Ed. 673 THE UNITED STATES v. THE SCHOONER BETSEY AND CHARLOTTE, AND HER CARGO. February Term, 1808 1 THIS was an appeal from the sentence of the circuit court of the district of Columbia, reversing that of the district court , which condemned the schooner Betsey and Charlotte , and her cargo, as forfeited, for a violation of the act of congress of the 28th of February, 1806, entitled, 'An act to suspend the commercial intercourse between the United States and...
8 U.S. 316 4 Cranch 316 THE UNITED STATES v. McDOWELL. February Term, 1808 1 ERROR to the district court for the district of Kentucky, in an action of debt for twenty thousand dollars, the penalty of an official bond given by the defendant, as marshal of that district, for the faithful execution of the duties of his office by himself and his deputies. The defendant pleaded performance generally. The United States, in their replication, assigned a special breach of the condition of the bond, in...
8 U.S. 317 4 Cranch 317 2 L. Ed. 633 THE MAYOR AND COMMONALTY OF ALEXANDRIA v. PATTEN AND OTHERS. February Term, 1808 1 ERROR to the circuit court of the district of Columbia, sitting at Alexandria, in an action of debt brought by the mayor and commonalty of Alexandria, for the use of John G. Ladd, against Thomas Patten and his sureties, on a bond given for the performance of his duty as vendue-master. 2 The object of the suit was to recover a sum of money alleged to remain in his hands as...
8 U.S. 403 4 Cranch 403 2 L. Ed. 660 STEAD'S EXECUTORS v. COURSE. February Term, 1808 1 ERROR to the circuit court for the district of Georgia, as a court of equity. 2 Stead's executors brought their bill in equity against Elizabeth Course , the widow , and Caroline Course , the infant daughter of Daniel Course, deceased , to set aside, as fraudulent, a deed of land made by Courvoisie , a collector of taxes for Chatham county, to Daniel Course, and to charge the land for payment of a debt due...
8 U.S. 398 (_) 4 Cranch 398 SPIERS v. WILLISON. Supreme Court of United States. P.B. Key, for the plaintiff in error. Jones and Harper, contra. *400 MARSHALL, Ch. J. The error assigned consists in both the admission and the operation of the testimony. So far as evidence of the existence of a deed went to show the nature of the possession which accompanied the deed, so far it was admissible; but it was not in itself evidence of any title in the plaintiff. There was no error, therefore, in...
8 U.S. 367 4 Cranch 367 2 L. Ed. 649 SHEARMAN v. IRVINE'S LESSEE. February Term, 1808 1 ERROR to the circuit court for the district of Georgia, in an action of ejectment, brought (on the 15th of October, 1804,) by Irvine's lessee against Shearman, for a tract of land in Camden county, in the state of Georgia. 2 The defendant below took a bill of exceptions to the refusal of the court, to non suit the plaintiff on the trial, because he had not proved 'an entry within seven years after the title...
8 U.S. 241 (_) 4 Cranch 241 ROSE v. HIMELY. Supreme Court of United States. *243 For the libellant, the case was argued by C. Lee, Harper, S. Chase, jun. Dallas, Rawle, Ingersoll, and Drayton, and For the respondent, by Duponceau, E. Tilghman, and Martin. [*] *268 MARSHALL, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court. This is a claim for a cargo of coffee, &c. which, after being shipped from a port in Santo Domingo, in possession of the brigands, was captured by a French privateer, and carried...
8 U.S. 401 (_) 4 Cranch 401 RAMSAY v. LEE. Supreme Court of United States. *402 Youngs, for the plaintiff in error. E.J. Lee, contra. MARSHALL, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court to the effect following: This case is the same as that of Willison v. Spiers, just decided, except that in this case the court below gave the *403 instruction which the court in Kentucky ought to have given. The opinion of the court was only that a parol gift to the defendant, accompanied by possession, did not...
8 U.S. 421 (_) 4 Cranch 421 POLLARD AND PICKETT v. DWIGHT ET AL. Supreme Court of United States. *424 C. Lee, for the plaintiffs in error. Harper, contra. *428 MARSHALL, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court as follows, viz. In this case objections have been made to the jurisdiction of the circuit court, and to the proceedings in that court. The point of jurisdiction made by the plaintiffs in error is considered as free from all doubt. By appearing to the action, the defendants in the court...
8 U.S. 347 (_) 4 Cranch 347 PEISCH AND OTHERS v. WARE AND OTHERS, AND THE UNITED STATES v. THE CARGO OF THE SHIP FAVOURITE. Supreme Court of United States. *349 Reed, United States attorney for the district of Delaware, contended. Broom and Van Dyke, contra. *358 MARSHALL, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court, as follows: In these cases two questions are to be decided by the court. 1st. Is the cargo of the Favourite, or any part of it, forfeited to the United States 2d. Are Ware and...
8 U.S. 219 4 Cranch 219 2 L. Ed. 601 PAWLING AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED STATES. February Term, 1808 1 ERROR to the district court for the district of Kentucky, in an action of debt upon an official bond given by Ballinger , as collector of the revenue, and signed and sealed by Pawling, Todd, Adair , and Kennedy , as his sureties, who pleaded that they delivered the same, as an escrow , to one Joseph Ballinger , to be safely kept; upon condition that, if Simon Ingleman , and William Patton , named...
8 U.S. 324 4 Cranch 324 2 L. Ed. 635 MOUNTZ AND OTHERS v. HODGSON AND THOMPSON. February Term, 1808 1 THIS was a writ of error to a supposed judgment of the circuit court of the district of Columbia, for the county of Washington, between Hodgson and Thompson, plaintiffs, and Jacob Mountz, John Mountz and Henry Knowles , defendants. 2 Hodgson and Thompson had recovered judgment in the court below, at December term, 1805, against Jacob Mountz and George Reintzel . By the act of assembly of...
8 U.S. 370 (_) 4 Cranch 370 MORGAN v. CALLENDER. Supreme Court of United States. This court was of opinion that an appeal lies from that court to this; but that in this case, the court below had not jurisdiction, because it did not appear that the parties were citizens of different states, nor aliens, &c. so as to give them a right to litigate in the courts of the United States.
8 U.S. 209 (_) 4 Cranch 209 M`ILVAINE v. COXE'S LESSEE. Supreme Court of United States. For the plaintiff in error, it was contended *211 CUSHING, J. delivered the opinion of the court, as follows. [ ] The court deems it unnecessary to declare an opinion upon a point which was much debated in this cause, whether a real British subject born before the 4th of July, 1776; who never from the time of his birth, resided within any of the American colonies or states, can, upon the principles of the...
8 U.S. 382 (_) 4 Cranch 382 MATTHEWS v. ZANE. Supreme Court of United States. *383 Harper, for the defendant in error. P.B. Key, contra. MARSHALL, Ch. J. declared it to be the opinion of a majority of the judges, that this court has jurisdiction. That the third article of the court of the United States when considered in connexion with the statute, will not give it a more extensive construction than it might otherwise receive. It is supposed that the act intends to give this court the power of...
