3 U.S. 321 (_) 3 Dall. 321 WISCART, et al. Plaintiffs in Error, versus DAUCHY, Defendant in Error. Supreme Court of United States. *322 The record being returned containing the above Decree, at large, and all the pleadings, and depositions, and examinations, produced and taken in the cause, the discussion, by Ingersoll, for the Defendant in error, and by Lee and Du Ponceau for the Plaintiff. *324 ELSWORTH, Chief Justice. The question, how far a statement of facts by the Circuit Court is...
2 U.S. 247 (_) 2 Dall. 247 WATERS versus COLLOT. Supreme Court of United States. *248 BY THE COURT. We think, that there is sufficient cause shewn, for holding the defendant to bail. But, it must not be understood, that, by this decision, we give any countenance to an opinion, that he is ultimately liable. It is a question of great delicacy, in which our regard for the rights of a fellow-citizen, and our respect for the sovereignty of a foreign nation, are equally involved. When, therefore, the...
3 U.S. 199 (_) 3 Dall. 199 WARE, Administrator of JONES, Plaintiff in Error, v. HYLTON et al. Supreme Court of United States. *207 E. Tilghman, for the Plaintiff in error. Marshall, (of Virginia) for the Defendant in error. Wilcocks, for the Plaintiff in error. Lewis, for the Plaintiff in error. *220 THE COURT, after great consideration, delivered their opinions, seriatim, as follow: CHACE, Justice. The Defendants in error, on the _ day of July, 1774, passed their penal bond to Farrell and...
3 U.S. 297 3 Dall. 297 1 L. Ed. 610 The United States v. La Vengeance August Term, 1796. 1 Error from the Circuit Court for the district of New York. It appeared on the return of the record, that La Vengeance, a French privateer, had captured and carried into New York, a Spanish ship, called La Princessa de Asturias; and that thereupon Don Diego Pintardo, the owner of the prize, filed a Libel in the District Court, complaining of the capture; alledging that La Vengeance was illegally fitted out...
2 U.S. 264 (_) 2 Dall. 264 STILES, Plf. in Er. versus DONALDSON. Supreme Court of United States. *265 Ingersoll, for the Defendant in Error. Condy, for the Plaintiff in Error. But THE COURT were, unanimously, of opinion, that the accounts, on which the set-off had been claimed, were not within the act of Limitations; and that the Common Pleas had done right in admitting the evidence offered by the defendant. Judgment affirmed.
4 U.S. 325 4 Dall. 325 1 L. Ed. 853 Searight v. Calbraith et al. Calbraith et al. v. Searight. Circuit Court, Pennsylvania District. April Term, 1796 1 SEARIGHT agreed, in February 1792, to sell to Calbraith & Co. a bill of exchange for 150,000 livres tournois, drawn upon Bourdieu, Chollet , and Bourdieu of London , payable in Paris , six months after sight; for which Calbraith and Co. agreed to pay at the rate of 17 pence the livre, (making in the whole, 10,625 l. Pennsylvania currency) in...
2 U.S. 360 2 Dall. 360 1 L. Ed. 415 Schermehorn v. L'Espenasse, et al. Circuit Court, Pennsylvania District October Term, 1796 Bill in Equity. This bill stated that on the 31st of December, 1790, the defendants, merchants of Amsterdam, had executed to the complainant (who resided at the same place) a Power of Attorney to receive to his own use, the interest due on 180,000 dollars of certificates of the United States bearing interest at 6 per cent, from the 1st Jan. 1788, to the 31st Dec. 1790,...
2 U.S. 243 (_) 2 Dall. 243 RUSTON'S Executors versus RUSTON. Supreme Court of United States. The case was argued in September term last, by Ingersoll and M`Kean, for the plaintiffs, and by E. Tilghman and Heatly, for the defendant. *244 On the 2d of April 1786, the Chief Justice delivered the following opinion: M`KEAN, Chief Justice. In the case of an intestacy, the rule of law is clear, that simple contract debts, bonds, mortgages, and specialties of every sort, must be paid by the...
2 U.S. 242 2 Dall. 242 1 L. Ed. 365 Ralston Assignee v. Bell Supreme Court of Pennsylvania March Term, 1796 1 This was an action for money had and received, &c. brought by Ralston, as assignee of Dewhurst, a bankrupt, against the defendant, who had sold goods of the bankrupt, by virtue of an authority from him; but, it appeared in evidence, that no money had been received by the defendant, at the time of commencing the action. 2 The counsel for the defendant (Ingersoll, Lewis & Dallas) objected,...
2 U.S. 252 (_) 2 Dall. 252 PERIT, Executrix versus WALLIS. Supreme Court of United States. *253 And it was argued by Ingersoll and Lewis, for the plaintiff; by Coxe and M. Levy, for the defendant. *255 Lewis, being about to reply, was stopped by the Court: M'KEAN, Chief Justice: The only question before the Court is, whether the Jury had a power, under the circumstances of this case, to give any damages beyond the penalty of the bond: The quantum (which might be a subject of dispute on a...
3 U.S. 308 (_) 3 Dall. 308 OLNEY versus ARNOLD. Supreme Court of United States. Olney, the Defendant in the court below. *318 The cause was held under advisement, till the 8th of August, when the CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the following decision on the point last argued. BY THE COURT: We are clearly of opinion, that the Superior Court of Rhode Island, on whose judgment this writ of error is brought, is the highest court of law of that state, within the meaning of the 25th section of the judicial...
3 U.S. 319 (_) 3 Dall. 319 MOODIE versus The Ship PHOEBE ANNE. Supreme Court of United States. The Ph be Anne, a British vessel. ELSWORTH, Chief Justice. Suggestions of policy and conveniency cannot be considered in the judicial determination of a question of right: the Treaty with France, whatever that is, must have its effect. By the 19th article, it is declared, that French vessels, whether public and of war, or private and of merchants, may, on any urgent necessity, enter our ports, and be...
3 U.S. 307 (_) 3 Dall. 307 MOODIE versus the Ship ALFRED. Supreme Court of United States. Reed, for the Plaintiff in error. THE COURT, however, without hearing the opposite Counsel, directed The Decree to be affirmed.
3 U.S. 188 (_) 3 Dall. 188 M`DONOUGH, versus DANNERY, and the Ship MARY FORD. Supreme Court of United States. *190 The cause was argued on the 4th and 5th of February, 1796, by E. Tilgham, for the plaintiff in error, and by Ingerjoll & Duponceau in error. For the Plaintiff in error. After argument, LOWEL, Judge of the District, delivered the opinion of the court, first recapitulating the facts above stated. "BY THE COURT. The Libellants have prayed, that the whole of the ship and cargo should...
2 U.S. 365 (_) 2 Dall. 365 KETLAND, qui tam. versus The CASSIUS. Supreme Court of United States. *366 Lewis, for the informant. *367 PETERS, Justice: The language of the act of Congress is so forcible, to vest an exclusive jurisdiction in the District Court, that the impression on my mind can never be obviated, but by something equally authoritative, direct, and conclusive. The argument which has been opposed to this language, merely consists of flight analogies, doubtful implications, and...
3 U.S. 171 (_) 3 Dall. 171 HYLTON, Plaintiff in Error, versus the UNITED STATES. Supreme Court of United States. *172 The cause was argued at this term, by Lee, the Attorney General of the United States, and Hamilton, the late Secretary of the Treasury, in support of the tax; and by Campbell, the Attorney of the Virginia District, and Ingersoll, the Attorney General of Pennsylvania. THE COURT delivered their opinions seriatim in the following terms. [*] CHASE, Justice. By the case stated, only...
3 U.S. 305 (_) 3 Dall. 305 HUNTER versus FAIRFAX'S Devisee. Supreme Court of United States. Lee and Ingersoll, in objection to the request. But, BY THE COURT: In all questions of this nature, we must be governed by a found discretion; in order to prevent, on the one hand, an unnecessary procrastination, and, on the other hand, to avoid an injurious precipitation of trials. In the present instance, we think there is a sufficient foundation laid before us, to justify our granting a continuance '...
2 U.S. 358 2 Dall. 358 1 L. Ed. 414 Hulsecamp v. Teel Circuit Court, Pennsylvania District April Term, 1796 1 This was an action for an Assault and Battery committed on the High Seas, and the damages were laid in the declaration at 1000 dollars; but the controversy being referred, the referees reported only 45 dollars in favor of the plaintiff. In April term 1795, M. Levy, for the defendant, obtained a rule to shew cause, why the report of the referees should not be quashed, and the action...
3 U.S. 331 (_) 3 Dall. 331 HILLS et al. versus ROSS. Supreme Court of United States. Ingersoll, contended, for the Plaintiffs in error. *332 BY THE COURT: It appears, that the damages have been assessed in the courts below, in relation to the value of the goods that were captured: but the Plaintiffs in error were not trespassers ab initio; and, acting only as agents, they should be made answerable for no more than actually came into their hands. The accounts of sales are regularly collected and...
3 U.S. 184 3 Dall. 184 1 L. Ed. 562 Hills et al Plaintiffs in Error v. Ross February Term, 1796 1 This was a writ of error directed to the Circuit Court for the District of Georgia. On the return of the record, several errors were assigned; but the only one, now relied on, states 'that the facts on which the Circuit Court had founded their decree, did not appear fully upon the record, either from the pleadings and decree itself, or a state of the case agreed to by the parties, or their council,...
