3 U.S. 503 3 Dall. 503 1 L. Ed. 697 Wharton et al. Executors v. Fitzgerald Supreme Court of Pennsylvania June, 1799 * 1 Indebitatus assumpsit. The action was founded on the following facts: On the 15th day of July, 1749, Joseph Ogden, being seized in his demesne as of fee, of and in a certain messuage and lot of ground, situate in the city of Philadelphia, made his last will and testament, by which he devised the premises to his mother, Hannah Wharton, the testatrix, by the name of Hannah Ogden,...
3 U.S. 513 (_) 3 Dall. 513 THE UNITED STATES versus THE INSURGENTS of Pennsylvania. Supreme Court of United States. BY THE COURT. The mere circumstance of delay, in trials of so much expectation and importance, though entitled to some consideration, would not be sufficient of itself to prevent a compliance with the present application: And, we think, that the 12th section of the Judicial act ought to be so construed, as to vest in the Judges a power of holding a special Court, in the proper...
3 U.S. 515 (_) 3 Dall. 515 The UNITED STATES versus FRIES. Supreme Court of United States. *518 After a solemn consideration of the subject, IREDELL, Justice, delivered his opinion in favor of a new trial, on the second ground of objection, that one of the Jurors had made declarations, as well in relation to the prisoner personally, as to the general question of the insurrection, which manifested a biass, or pre-determination, that ought never to be felt by a Juror. He added, that he did not...
4 U.S. 7 (_) 4 Dall. 7 Turner, Administrator, versus Enrille. Supreme Court of United States. *8 For the defendant in error, Dallas lamented the obvious irregularities on the face of the record. By the COURT. The decision in the case of Bingham v. Cabot et al. must govern the present case. Let the judgment be reversed with costs.
4 U.S. 8 4 Dall. 8 1 L. Ed. 718 TURNER, administrator of Stanley, plaintiff in error, v. The President, Directors and Company of the BANK OF NORTH AMERICA, defendants. August Term, 1799. Jurisdiction—Parties. ERROR from the Circuit Court of North Carolina. This was an action upon a promissory note, made in Philadelphia, by Stanley, the intestate, in favor of Biddle & Co., and indorsed by Biddle & Co. to the Bank of North America. The declaration (which contained only a count upon the note...
4 U.S. 1 (_) 4 Dall. 1 The State of New-York versus The State of Connecticut et al. Supreme Court of United States. *2 Hoffman, (the attorney-general of New-York) contended. The opinion of the COURT was delivered by the Chief Justice. ELLSWORTH, Chief Justice. The prohibition contained in the statute, that writs of injunction shall not be granted, without reasonable notice to the adverse party, or his attorney, extends to injunctions granted by the Supreme Court, or the Circuit Court, as well...
3 U.S. 425 (_) 3 Dall. 425 SIMS Lessee versus IRVINE. Supreme Court of United States. *456 The CHIEF JUSTICE, on the last day of the term, delivered the opinion of the court as follows: ELLSWORTH Chief Justice. It appears that William Douglass, for services rendered, acquired under the King's Proclamation of 1763, a right to 5000 acres of unappropriated land in America; which right he assigned to Charles Sims, the lessor of the Plaintiff below. And although by the terms of the proclamation, the...
3 U.S. 490 (_) 3 Dall. 490 RESPUBLICA versus WRAY. Supreme Court of United States. The rule was opposed by Dallas and M`Kean; and the opinion of the court in the absence of the CHIEF JUSTICE, was delivered by SHIPPEN, Justice. The present is the first instance, that we recollect, of an application of this kind in Pennsylvania; and on opening the case, it struck us to be within the 10th section of the 9th Article of the Constitution, which declares, "that no "person shall for any indictable...
3 U.S. 505 (_) 3 Dall. 505 REED versus INGRAHAM. Supreme Court of United States. BY THE COURT: The action is well brought, as it is founded on a contract, in which the Defendant expressly stipulates, that he will receive the stock from, and pay the price to, *506 Joseph Boggs, or his order. On general principles of law, stock contracts cannot be regarded as negotiable; but a contractor may certainly make himself liable as if they were so; and the maxim, modus et conventio vincunt leges,...
3 U.S. 510 (_) 3 Dall. 510 POLLOCK et al. versus DONALDSON. Supreme Court of United States. THIS was an action brought by the Underwriters, to recover a premium of 15 per cent on a Policy of Insurance, upon the cargo of the brig Pilgrim. The Policy was dated the 17th of November, 1794, and contained the following clauses; namely, "lost or not lost, in port and at sea, and at "all times and places, for the space of six callender months, "from the 8th day of September, 1794, to the 8th day of...
3 U.S. 506 3 Dall. 506 1 L. Ed. 698 Peterson v. Willing, et al. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania June, 1799 3 U.S. 506 3 Dall. 506 1 L. Ed. 698 Peterson 1 v. 2 Willing, et al. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania June, 1799 3 This was an action for money had and received to the Plaintiff's use, founded on the following facts: On the 17th of December, 1796, Levinus Clarkson executed a mortgage to Samuel Clarkson, on certain stores and lots of ground in Philadelphia, to secure the payment of 8,000 dollars,...
3 U.S. 491 (_) 3 Dall. 491 MURGATROYD versus CRAWFORD. Supreme Court of United States. SHIPPEN, Justice. On this Policy, the assured has engaged to prove in any Court of Pennsylvania, that the Mount Vernon was American property; and it is, also, incumbent on him to prove, that the ship failed upon the voyage insured; that she has been captured, and condemned. On the question of property, the American Register was produced, which contains *492 the oath of the Plaintiff, an American Citizen, that...
4 U.S. 47 (_) 4 Dall. 47 Ludlow, Plaintiff in Error, versus Bingham. [*] Supreme Court of United States. *49 The case was argued by Ingersoll and Dallas, for the plaintiff, and by Lewis and E. Tilghman, for the defendant. *61 After consideration the unanimous opinion of the COURT was delivered, by the Chief Justice, who, having stated the case, proceeded as follows: M`KEAN, Chief Justice. The first inquiry, which it is necessary to pursue, is, where was the note in controversy made, in...
4 U.S. 167 (_) 4 Dall. 167 Levy versus Wallis. Supreme Court of United States. The COURT declared, that it had been repeatedly determined, and was become the settled law of Pennsylvania, that the act of *168 suffering goods to remain in the hands of the defendant, after they were levied upon, furnished no presumption of fraud here, as it did in England; and that this departure from the English rule arose from sentiments of humanity, and the peculiar necessities of the country. In the interior...
3 U.S. 411 (_) 3 Dall. 411 FOWLER et al. vs. LINDSEY, et al. FOWLER et al. vs. MILLER. Supreme Court of United States. *412 The amended rule was argued, by Lewis and Hoffman (the Attorney-General of New-York.) WASHINGTON, Justice. The first question that occurs, from the arguments on the present occasion, respects the nature of the rights, that are contested in the suits, depending in the Circuit Court. Without entering into a critical examination of the Constitution and laws, in relation to...
3 U.S. 409 3 Dall. 409 1 L. Ed. 658 Dewhurst v. Coulthard February Term, 1799. 1 On the opening of the Court a commission, dated the 20th of December 1798, was read, appointing Bushrod Washington, one of the associate Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, and he was qualified according to law. * 2 The following statement of a case was presented by E. Tilghman to the Court, at the instance of the attornies for both the parties, in the suit in the Circuit Court of the New-York...
3 U.S. 415 (_) 3 Dall. 415 CLARKE versus RUSSEL. Supreme Court of United States. *419 The general errors being assigned, and issue being joined on the plea in nullo est erratum, the cause was argued by Lee, the Attorney General, Howell (of Rhode-Island) and Ingersoll, for the Plaintiff in error; and by E. Tilghman, Dexter (of Massachusetts) and Robbins (of Rhode-Island) for the Defendant in error. [*] *424 The opinion of the Court, after some days deliberation, was delivered by the Chief...
3 U.S. 496 (_) 3 Dall. 496 BRECKBILL versus TURNPIKE COMPANY. Supreme Court of United States. *500 E. Tilghman and Hopkins, for the Plaintiff. Lewis, Ingersoll, M`Kean and C. Smith, for the Defendants. THE COURT, on the day succeeding the argument, delivered an unanimous opinion, that on this special verdict, the Plaintiff could not recover, in the present form of action, against the Defendants, as a corporation: And, therefore, they deemed it unnecessary to decide the other questions in the...
4 U.S. 163 4 Dall. 163 1 L. Ed. 783 Ball v. Dennison. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. September Term, 1799 1 THIS was an action brought by the indorsee, against the indorser, of a promissory note for 5000 dollars, drawn by Samuel Emory , on the 26th of December 1795, and payable 65 days after sight. The drawer, failing to pay the note, it was regularly protested, on the 3d of March 1796; and the only question agitated upon the trial, was, whether reasonable notice of the non-payment was given to...
