2 U.S. 92 (_) 2 Dall. 92 WYCOFF versus LONGHEAD. [*] Supreme Court of United States. THIS was an action on a promissory note; to which the defendant pleaded the act of Assembly against usury; and thereupon the following points were ruled by the Court, in their charge to the Jury. 1st. That where more than legal interest was included in any note, bond, or specialty, the whole amount could not be sued for and recovered: But the plaintiff was entitled, in such case, to a verdict for the just...
1 U.S. 125 (1785) 1 Dall. 125 WHARTON et al. versus MORRIS et al. Supreme Court of United States. Wilcocks, Sergeant, and Lewis, for the plaintiffs. M'KEAN, Chief Justice delivered a circumstantial and learned charge to the Jury. He said, that the want of a Court with equitable powers, like those of the Chancery in England, had long been felt in Pennsylvania. The institution of such a Court, he observed, had once been agitated here; but the houses of Assembly, antecedent to the revolution,...
1 U.S. 156 (1785) 1 Dall. 156 WEAVER versus LAWRENCE. Supreme Court of United States. SHIPPEN, President. In England there are two kinds of replevin; First, by Common Law, when the writ issues out of the court of Chancery: Secondly, by the statute of Marlbridge, which enables the sheriff to make replevins without writ, and then, having taken security, he proceeds on the complaint of the plaintiff, either by parol, or precept to his bailiff. In the latter case, the writ de proprietate probanda,...
1 U.S. 137 (1785) 1 Dall. 137 VANHOR'S Lessee versus HARRISON. Supreme Court of United States. The CHIEF JUSTICE now recapitulated the material points, and delivered the opinion of the Court as follows. M`KEAN, Chief Justice. This cause comes before the Court on a case made for their opinion. The case is long, and has stated several particulars, which can have but little influence upon the decision. The material facts are: That a certain Johannes Vandegrift was seized in fee of the premises in...
1 U.S. 127 1 Dall. 127 1 L. Ed. 66 Shoemaker v. Shirtliffe No. _. Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County June Term, 1785 1 Dallas moved for a rule to show cause why the execution issued in this action, should not be staid, till another action, brought upon the act of Assembly against Usury, by Shirtliffe, the present defendant, against Shoemaker, the present plaintiff, was determined. 2 The motion was founded upon an affirmation, which stated, that the plaintiff and defendant, having been...
1 U.S. 150 (1785) 1 Dall. 150 RESPUBLICA versus CALDWELL. Supreme Court of United States. But M`KEAN, Chief Justice, delivered the opinion of the Court, that the evidence was inadmissible, for two reasons: First, Because it would only amount to matter of opinion, whereas it is on facts the Court must proceed; and the necessary facts are already in proof. Secondly; Because it would be no justification; for, on the same principle that the defendant might carry his wharf 12 feet, he could justify...
1 U.S. 147 (1785) 1 Dall. 147 MORRIS versus TARIN. Supreme Court of United States. *148 Sergeant, for the defendant. Wilson, for the plaintiff. The Court held the case under advisement till the 21st of November, when THE PRESIDENT delivered their opinion as follows. SHIPPEN, President. This is an action for money had and received to the plaintiff's use. The facts are, that a bill of exchange was drawn on a house in France by Benjamin Harrison & Company, of which company the plaintiff was one,...
1 U.S. 139 (1785) 1 Dall. 139 M'CULLUM versus COXE. Supreme Court of United States. *140 These facts being made to appear, THE COURT said they would not allow any collutive settlement between the original parties, to affect General Forman's bona fide assignment, and ordered the jury to be sworn. And M'KEAN, Chief Justice, observed, that where an action was brought under such circumstances, it ought to be mentioned upon the docket for whose use; a practise which had always prevailed when he was...
1 U.S. 151 1 Dall. 151 1 L. Ed. 77 Hollingsworth v. Hamelin No. _. Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County. December Term, 1785 1 The defendant having absconded, a domestic attachment issued against him at the suit of the plaintiff, and the auditors, under that process, having advertised that all persons, who had demands, should send in their accounts, in a reasonable time afterwards, made a dividend among the creditors that filed their claims. Previously to issuing the domestic attachment,...
1 U.S. 123 1 Dall. 123 1 L. Ed. 64 Davison's Lessee v. Bloomer No. _. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1785 1 A Deed, attested by two witnesses, one of whom had married the Lessor of the plaintiff, the other residing within the County and not produced, was offered in evidence, upon proof of the hand writing of the witnesses. 2 Hartly objected, that it would be better evidence to prove the execution of the deed by the absent witness, not interested; and, therefore, this ought not to be...
1 U.S. 130 1 Dall. 130 1 L. Ed. 68 CARREW v. WILLING. No. _. Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County June Term, 1785 1 Capias to June, 1784. The Bail bond sued to September, 1784; and December 1784, judgment was signed on the bail bond suit nifi special bail filed in 30 days. Default was made in filing special bail, and fi: fa: moved to June 1785. 2 And now, August 8, 1785, Sitgreaves filed defendant's affidavit of a just defence, and obtained a rule to show cause, why the proceedings in the...
1 U.S. 133 (1785) 1 Dall. 133 BURROWS versus HEYSHAM. Supreme Court of United States. *134 On the 20th of August, the PRESIDENT delivered the opinion of the Court. SHIPPEN, President. As it has not been made any part of the argument, that the power of the Court to amend, is not the same, as it was before the action was removed, we shall determine the question as we should have done, if the writ of error had not been brought. Upon the liberal principles of modern practice, therefore, and indeed,...
2 U.S. 91 (_) 2 Dall. 91 BOYD versus BOPST. [*] Supreme Court of United States. IN the charge to the Jury, THE COURT observed, that the maxim of Caveat Emptor only applied to real estates; as the purchaser had the means of examining the title within his own power. But the possession of chattels, is a strong inducement to believe, that the possessor is the owner; and the act of selling them, is such an affirmation of property, that, on that circumstance alone, if the fact should turn out...
