1 U.S. 69 (1782) 1 Dall. 69 WILCOX et al, versus HENRY. Supreme Court of United States. *71 Lewis and Wilson for the plaintiffs Bradford and Ingersol for the defendant. The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered a charge to the jury of the following purport. M`KEAN, C.J. As the council or both sides have quoted many cases, but have not appealed to the court for their opinion on the different points of law, the jury must take the whole together, and form their own judgment upon the subject. When the British...
1 U.S. 64 (1782) 1 Dall. 64 MORRIS'S Lessee versus VANDEREN. Supreme Court of United States. And BY THE COURT: The objection is over-ruled and the paper allowed to be given in evidence. [ ] *65 2d. The plaintiff produced the Proprietary's warrants to make a survey of the lands in question, for a person under whom he now claimed, without shewing any actual survey, but only a paper in the nature of a certificate from a former surveyor general, stating that such survey had been made. It was...
1 U.S. 63 (1782) 1 Dall. 63 M`DILL'S Lessee versus M`DILL. [*] Supreme Court of United States. *64 BY THE COURT: The signing of a Deed is now the material part of the execution; the seal has become a mere form, and a written, or ink seal, as it is called, is good. Any Deed under seal, when proved, is proper to be given in evidence. 6 Mod. 45. And, we are of opinion, that a Deed, the execution of which is sworn to by one witness before a magistrate, who certifies the same, is within the rule....
1 U.S. 63 1 Dall. 63 1 L. Ed. 38 McDill Lessee v. McDill * No. _. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1782 1 A deed executed by two persons, with one was, and another ink seal, attested by one witness only, and merely proved by him before a justice, without being recorded was offered in evidence. 2 It was objected, that by the Act of Assembly, 1 St. Laws. 78. a Deed must be executed before, and be proved by, two witnesses; and that even that kind of proof was not to be received, unless...
2 U.S. 36 (_) 2 Dall. 36 KEANE, et al. Libellants and Appellants, versus The BRIG GLOUCESTER, et al. Appellees. Supreme Court of United States. *37 BY THE COURT: Two objections are made to the decree below: The first objection is, that a libel does not lie by the crew of a privateer, for their respective proportions of a prize. The second objection is, that the libellants, in this case, are not part of the privateer's crew, nor captors, entitled to a proportion of the prize stated in their...
2 U.S. 34 (_) 2 Dall. 34 DARBY, et. al. Appellants, versus THE BRIG ERSTERN, et. al. Supreme Court of United States. BY THE COURT. Upon the evidence in this case, we are of opinion, that the Brig, at the time of her capture, was the property of Imperial subjects at Ostend, and that the cargo was British property, unprotected by the capitulation of Dominica. It is objected, "The Brig is not prize, because neutral property." Neutral property cannot be captured: For, while the character of...
2 U.S. 41 (_) 2 Dall. 41 The Owners of the Sloop CHESTER, versus The Owners of the Brig EXPERIMENT, et. al. Supreme Court of United States. BY THE COURT. Having considered the evidence, and arguments adduced by the Counsel for the petitioners, and respondents, we are of opinion, that there is not sufficient cause to admit the appeal of the petitioners, from the decree of the Court of Admiralty, in the State of South Carolina, condemning the Sloop Chester, her Apparel, and Cargo. If the appeal *...
