45 U.S. 289 (1846) 4 How. 289 ZELLER'S LESSEE v. JACOB K. ECKERT AND OTHERS. Supreme Court of United States. *292 The cause was argued by Mr. Charles J. Ingersoll, for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. Scott, for defendants. *294 Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court. According to the true construction of the will of Frederick *295 White, we are inclined to think that the widow was entitled to the possession and enjoyment of the premises in question down to the year 1809, when the...
45 U.S. 712 (1846) 4 How. 712 WILLIAM W. WOODWORTH, ADMINISTRATOR, &c., AND E.V. BUNN, ASSIGNEE, COMPLAINANTS AND APPELLANTS, v. JAMES, BENJAMIN, AND ALPHEUS WILSON. Supreme Court of United States. *716 The cause was argued by Mr. Latrobe and Mr. Staples, for the complainants, Woodworth and Bunn, and by Mr. Bibb, for the defendants. Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court. The objection taken, that the administrator could not apply for an extension of the patent granted to...
46 U.S. 1 (_) 5 How. 1 JAMES WOOD, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. WILLIAM A. UNDERHILL AND ASCHEL H. GEROW, DEFENDANTS. Supreme Court of United States. *2 The cause was argued by Mr. Silliman, for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. Rowley, for the defendants. Mr. Silliman, for the plaintiff in error, made the following points. *4 Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court. The question presented in this case is a narrow one, and may be disposed of in a few words. The plaintiff claims that...
45 U.S. 712 (1846) 4 How. 712 JAMES G. WILSON, COMPLAINANT AND APPELLANT, v. JOSEPH TURNER, JUNIOR, AND JOHN C. TURNER, DEFENDANTS. Supreme Court of United States. It was argued by Mr. Phelps and Mr. Webster, for Wilson, the appellant, and Mr. Schley, for the appellees, who were the defendants below. Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court. The judgment of the court in the previous case of Wilson v. Rousseau et al. disposes of the questions in this case, and affirms the decree of...
45 U.S. 646 (1846) 4 How. 646 JAMES G. WILSON, PLAINTIFF, v. LEWIS ROUSSEAU AND CHARLES EASTON. Supreme Court of United States. *672 *673 The case was argued by Mr. Seward, Mr. Latrobe, and Mr. Webster (the two latter dividing the points), on behalf of the plaintiff, and Mr. Stevens, for the defendants. Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court. The question in this case come before us on a certificate of division of opinion from the Circuit Court of the United States for the...
45 U.S. 567 (1846) 4 How. 567 THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFFS, v. WILLIAM S. ROGERS. Supreme Court of United States. *571 The case came up to this court upon the points certified, and was argued by Mr. Mason, Attorney-General, on behalf of the United States. Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court. This case has been sent here by the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Arkansas, under a certificate of division of opinion between the justices of that court. It...
45 U.S. 286 (1846) 4 How. 286 THE UNITED STATES, APPELLANT, v. JOHN C. McLEMORE. Supreme Court of United States. *287 The case was argued by Mr. Mason (Attorney-General), for the appellant, and by Mr. Brinley and Mr. Eaton, for the defendant. Mr. Justice McLEAN delivered the opinion of the court. This is an appeal from the decree of the Circuit Court of the United States, for the District of Middle Tennessee. *288 The bill was filed by McLemore and Cantwell, surviving executor of Robert Searcy,...
46 U.S. 29 (_) 5 How. 29 THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. GORDON D. BOYD AND OTHERS, DEFENDANTS. Supreme Court of United States. *34 The cause was argued at the preceding term by Mr. Mason (then Attorney-General), for the United States, plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. Cocke and Mr. Henderson, for the defendants in error. Mr. Mason made the following points: &mdash. *48 Mr. Justice NELSON, after reading the statement in the commencement of this report, proceeded to deliver the opinion...
45 U.S. 225 4 How. 225 11 L. Ed. 949 THE AGRICULTURAL BANK OF MISSISSIPPI AND OTHERS, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. CHARLES RICE AND MARY HIS WIFE, AND MARTHA PHIPPS, DEFENDANTS. January Term, 1846 THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi. It was an ejectment brought by the defendants in error against the Agricultural Bank and others, to recover two undivided third parts of a lot of ground in the city of Natchez,...
45 U.S. 380 (1846) 4 How. 380 JAMES STIMPSON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. THE WEST CHESTER RAILROAD COMPANY, DEFENDANTS. Supreme Court of United States. *391 The case was argued by Mr. C.J. Ingersoll and Mr. J.R. Ingersoll, for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. Miles, for the defendants in error. *401 Mr. Justice McLEAN delivered the opinion of the court. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for an infringement of his patent, for a "new and useful improvement in the mode of turning...
45 U.S. 500 4 How. 500 11 L. Ed. 1074 RICHARD CHARLES DOWNES, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. WILLIAM S. SCOTT, DEFENDANT. January Term, 1846 THIS case was brought up from the Ninth Judicial District Court of the State of Louisiana, by a writ of error issued under the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act. Mr. Crittenden , for the defendant in error, moved to dismiss the writ for the following reasons. Because,——1st. Said writ of error is directed to the 'Judge of the Ninth Judicial District Court...
45 U.S. 591 (1846) 4 How. 591 THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, COMPLAINANT, v. THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, DEFENDANT. Supreme Court of United States. *592 The case was argued by Mr. Randolph and Mr. Whipple, on the part of Rhode Island, and by Mr. Choate and Mr. Webster, on the part of Massachusetts. *628 Mr. Justice McLEAN delivered the opinion of the court. We approach this case under a due sense of the dignity of the parties, and of the importance of the principles which it involves. The...
46 U.S. 278 (_) 5 How. 278 GEORGE W. PHILLIPS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. JOHN S. PRESTON, DEFENDANT IN ERROR. Supreme Court of United States. *287 The cause was argued by Mr. Barton for the plaintiff in error. *288 Mr. Justice WOODBURY delivered the opinion of the court. The points which have been argued in this case are in part connected with matters of form, and in part with what is substance. We shall dispose of the first, before proceeding to examine the last. The principal objection in...
46 U.S. 51 (_) 5 How. 51 JAMES PEEPER, SARAH H. EVANS, GEORGE McCULLOUGH, AND LOUISA McCULLOUGH, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. HUGH W. DUNLAP, CURATOR, &C., AND HIS WIFE. Supreme Court of United States. *52 Mr. Crittenden moved to dismiss the writ for want of jurisdiction in this court. Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court. This case is brought here by writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana; and a motion is made to dismiss it for want of jurisdiction in...
45 U.S. 122 (1846) 4 How. 122 JOHN C. PAIGE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. MARTHA A. SESSIONS. Supreme Court of United States. The facts in the case bringing it within the principles of the case of Price v. Sessions, decided at the last term of this court, Mr. Crittenden, on behalf of the defendant in error. Mr. Justice McLEAN delivered the opinion of the court. This writ of error brings before us a case from the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. At May term, 1840, a judgment was...
46 U.S. 7 5 How. 7 12 L. Ed. 26 N. AND J. DICK AND COMPANY v. HARDIN D. RUNNELS. January Term, 1847 This case came up from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Mississippi, on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges thereof. The only question involved was the construction of a part of the 30th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 (1 Stat. at L. 88), which part is as follows. After providing for taking the testimony of persons 'who shall live at a greater...
45 U.S. 262 (1846) 4 How. 262 MICHAEL MUSSON AND GEORGE O. HALL, SURVIVING PARTNERS OF WILLIAM NOLL, PLAINTIFFS, v. WILLIAM A. LAKE. Supreme Court of United States. *264 The cause was argued by Mr. Barton, for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Mason (Attorney-General), for the defendant. Mr. Barton, for plaintiffs. *273 Mr. Justice McKINLEY delivered the opinion of the court. The plaintiffs brought an action of assumpsit, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi,...
45 U.S. 503 (1846) 4 How. 503 ANTOINE MICHOUD, JOSEPH MARIE GIROD, GABRIEL MONTAMAT, FELIX GRIMA, JEAN B. DEJAN, AINE, DENIS PRIEUR, CHARLES CLAIBORNE, MANDEVILLE MARIGNY, MADAM E. GRIMA, WIDOW SABATIER, A. FOURNIER, E. MAZUREAU, E. RIVOLET, CLAUDE GURLIE, THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, THE TREASURER OF THE CHARITY HOSPITAL, AND THE CATHOLIC ORPHAN'S ASYLUM, APPELLANTS, v. PERONNE BERNARDINE GIROD, WIDOW OF J.P.H. PARGOUD, RESIDING AT ABERVILLE, IN THE DUCHY OF SAVOY, ROSALIE GIROD,...
45 U.S. 421 (1846) 4 How. 421 ISABELLA L. MACKAY, EXECUTRIX OF JAMES MACKAY, ZENO MACKAY, GEORGE ANTHONY MACKAY, JAMES BENNETT MACKAY, REUBEN-COLEMAN AND ELIZA LUCY, HIS WIFE, WILLIAM COLEMAN AND AMELIA ANN, HIS WIFE, LOUIS GUYON AND MARY CATHERINE, HIS WIFE, DAVID BOWLES AND JULIA JANE, HIS WIFE, AND ISABELLA LOUISA MACKAY BY ISABELLA L. MACKAY HER GUARDIAN, v. PATRICK M. DILLON. Supreme Court of United States. *445 The cause was argued by Mr. Lawless, for the plaintiff in error, and Mr....
45 U.S. 155 4 How. 155 11 L. Ed. 918 LUCIUS W. STOCKTON AND DANIEL MOORE, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. HARRIET BISHOP. January Term, 1846 1 THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for West Pennsylvania. 2 There was no bill of exceptions signed by the judge, and the record presented the following appearance. 3 Among the rolls, records, and judicial proceedings of the Circuit Court of the United States, in and for the Western District of Pennsylvania, in...
