3 U.S. 401 (_) 3 Dall. 401 WILSON versus DANIEL. Supreme Court of United States. *402 In February term 1797, E. Tilghman, for the Defendant. *404 ELSWORTH, Chief Justice. There have been two exceptions taken to the record in the present case: 1. That the judgment of the inferior Court is so defective, that a Writ of Error will not lie upon it. It is evident, however, that the judgment is not merely interlocutory; but is in its nature final, and goes to the whole merits of the case. Though...
2 U.S. 384 (_) 2 Dall. 384 THE UNITED STATES versus WORRALL. Supreme Court of United States. *388 On these facts, M. Levy, for the defendant. The Attorney of the District (Rawle) replied. BY THE COURT: The letter appears by its date to have been written in Pennsylvania; and it is actually delivered by the defendant at a post office in Pennsylvania. The writing and the delivery at the Post-Office (thus putting it in the way to be delivered to Mr. Coxe) must be considered, in effect, as one act;...
3 U.S. 467 (_) 3 Dall. 467 RESPUBLICA versus COBBET. Supreme Court of United States. The argument embraced two propositions. *472 After advisement, the unanimous opinion of THE COURT was delivered by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, in the following terms. M`KEAN, Chief Justice. This action is brought on a recognizance to the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, for the good behaviour, entered into by the Defendant before me. The Defendant has appeared to the action, and exhibited his petition to the Court, praying...
3 U.S. 486 (_) 3 Dall. 486 M`KEE'S Lessee versus PFOUT. Supreme Court of United States. *488 The general question submitted to the Court, was whether a conveyance in fee, by a tenant by the curtesy, is not a forfeiture of his estate And it was argued by Ingersoll, for the Lessor of the Plaintiff, and by Duncan and C. Smith, for the Defendant. *489 The court stopped Ingersoll, when he was about to reply, and delivered their opinion as follows. M`KEAN, Chief Justice. We entertain no doubt on...
4 U.S. 155 4 Dall. 155 1 L. Ed. 780 Keppele et al. v. Carr et al. Carr et al. v. Keppele et al. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. December Term, 1798 1 THE case was, briefly, this: Kepple and Zantzinger, Philadelphia merchants, being indebted to Carr and Sons, English merchants, for goods sold and delivered, bought a bill of exchange from John Swanwick for the amount, drawn in their favour and indorsed by them; delivered the bill to one of the partners of Carr and Sons, who was in Philadelphia ,...
3 U.S. 384 (_) 3 Dall. 384 JONES, Indorsee, versus LE TOMBE. Supreme Court of United States. *385 At the opening of the Term, Dallas and Du Ponceau had obtained a rule, that the Plaintiff shew his cause of action, and why the Defendant should not be discharged on filing a common appearance; and now Ingerfoll and E. Tilghman shewed cause, produced the bills of exchange, and the Plaintiff's positive affidavit of a subsisting debt, including a declaration. The Counsel for the Defendant were...
3 U.S. 378 3 Dall. 378 1 L. Ed. 644 Hollingsworth, et al. v. Virginia. February Term, 1798. 1 The decision of the Court, in the case of Chisholm, Ex'or. versus Georgia, (2 Dall. Rep.419) produced a proposition in Congress, for amending the Constitution of the United States, according to the following terms: 2 'The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law and equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States, by citizens of another...
2 U.S. 396 (_) 2 Dall. 396 HOLLINGSWORTH versus ADAMS. Supreme Court of United States. Thomas and Hallowell, on behalf of the plaintiff, wished for time to enquire into the practice; but not being able on the next day to assign any satisfactory reason in maintenance of the action. THE COURT directed the writ to be quashed with costs.
3 U.S. 369 (_) 3 Dall. 369 EMORY versus GRENOUGH. Supreme Court of United States. Ingersoll and Dallas, for the Plaintiff in error. Lewis and E. Tilghman, for the Defendant in error. [*] The Plaintiff in error was a native of Massachusetts, formerly resident in Boston, where he contracted the debt in question to the Defendant in error, who was, also a native, and had always continued a resident, of that state. Some years afterwards the Plaintiff in error removed into Pennsylvania, became a...
3 U.S. 386 (_) 3 Dall. 386 CALDER et WIFE, versus BULL et WIFE. Supreme Court of United States. CHASE, Justice. The decision of one question determines (in my opinion) the present dispute. I shall, therefore, state from the record no more of the case, than I think necessary for the consideration of that question only. The Legislature of Connecticut, on the 2d Thursday of May 1795, passed a resolution or law, which, for the reasons assigned, set aside a decree of the court of Probate for Harford,...
3 U.S. 382 (_) 3 Dall. 382 BINGHAM, Plaintiff in Error, versus CABOT, et al. Supreme Court of United States. *383 Lee, Attorney General, contended for the Plaintiff in error. THE COURT were clearly of opinion, that it was necessary to set forth the citizenship (or alienage, where a foreigner was concerned) of the respective parties, in order to bring the *384 case within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court; and that the record, in the present case, was in that respect defective. This cause...
3 U.S. 477 3 Dall. 477 1 L. Ed. 687 Anonymous Supreme Court of Pennsylvania December Term, 1798 3 U.S. 477 3 Dall. 477 1 L. Ed. 687 Anonymous Supreme Court of Pennsylvania December Term, 1798 1 This was an ejectment, to be decided by the opinion of the court. It appeared that the Lessor of the Plaintiff claimed as heir at law of James Graham, who made his will on the 8th of October, 1745, devising 'to my wife one third part of all my effects, the improvements excepted. Also I give to my son...
