4 U.S. 20 (_) 4 Dall. 20 Williamson, Plaintiff in Error, versus Kincaid. Supreme Court of United States. *21 Ingersoll and Dallas, for the plaintiff in error. E. Tilghman, for the defendant in error. By the COURT: Be it so. Let the value of the matter in dispute be ascertained by affidavits, to be taken on ten days notice to the demandant, or her counsel in Georgia. But, consequently, the writ of error is not to be a supersedeas.
4 U.S. 208 (_) 4 Dall. 208 Water's Executors versus M`Clellan et al. [(2)] . Supreme Court of United States. SHIPPEN, Chief Justice. 1st. It is incumbent on the plaintiff, to prove his property in the goods, which were taken by the sheriff; and to do this, he has produced evidence of a former distress and sale, of the same goods, for rent due from Dewees to him. But the defendants answer, that the distress was fraudulent; because (among other reasons) the goods were left in the possession of...
4 U.S. 341 (_) 4 Dall. 341 The United States versus Cooper. Supreme Court of United States. CHASE, Justice. The constitution gives to every man, charged with an offence, the benefit of compulsory process, to secure the attendance of his witnesses. I do not know of any privilege to exempt members of congress from the service, or the obligations, of a subp na, in such cases. I will not sign any letter of the kind proposed. If, upon service of a subp na, the members of congress do not attend, a...
4 U.S. 348 (_) 4 Dall. 348 Thurston versus Koch. Supreme Court of United States. Condy, for the plaintiff, and Ingersoll, for the defendant. *350 PATERSON, Justice. The case before the Court is that of a double insurance; and the question is, whether the insurers shall contribute rateably, or shall pay according to priority of contract, until the insured be satisfied to the amount of his loss. The law on this subject, is different in different nations of Europe, owing to the diversity of local...
4 U.S. 218 (_) 4 Dall. 218 The Lessee of Weitzell et al. versus Fry. Supreme Court of United States. *220 SHIPPEN, Chief Justice. There are two points of inquiry before the Court and jury: 1st. Whether the proceedings upon the sale have been regular 2d. Was there such an act of fraud, unfairness, or contrivance, at the time of the sale, as ought to vitiate the whole transaction 1st. It is alleged, on the first point, that there was no precept authorising the sale; and it is proved, that, on...
4 U.S. 170 (_) 4 Dall. 170 The Commonwealth versus Tench Coxc, Esq. Supreme Court of United States. *196 SHIPPEN, Chief Justice. The legislature, by the act of the 3d of April 1792, meant to sell the remaining lands of the state, particularly those lying on the north and west of the rivers Ohio and Alleghany. The consideration money was to be paid on issuing the warrants. They had, likewise, another object, namely, that, if possible, the lands should be settled by improvers. The latter terms,...
4 U.S. 34 (_) 4 Dall. 34 Talbot versus The Ship Amelia, Seeman, Claimant. Supreme Court of United States. *36 "Alexander Hamilton, of counsel for plaintiff in error. "B. Livingston, of counsel for defendant in error." On the 18th of August, PATERSON, Justice, stated, that it was the wish of the COURT to postpone the cause for further argument, before a fuller bench. It was, accordingly, argued again at Washington, in August term 1801, by Ingersoll and Bayard (of Delaware) for the plaintiff in...
4 U.S. 212 (_) 4 Dall. 212 Sharp versus Pettit. Supreme Court of United States. By the COURT: It must be so; but let judgment be entered for the demandant, without damages, or costs.
4 U.S. 22 (_) 4 Dall. 22 Rutherford et al. Plaintiffs in Error, versus Fisher et al. Supreme Court of United States. CHASE, Justice. In England a writ of error may be brought upon an interlocutory decree or order; and until a decision is obtained upon the writ, the proceedings in the Court below are stayed. But here the words of the act, which allow a writ of error, allow it only in the case of a final judgment. By the COURT: The writ must be quashed with costs.
4 U.S. 28 4 Dall. 28 1 L. Ed. 727 Priestman, Plaintiff in Error, v. The United States. August Term, 1800 1 IN error from the Circuit Court, for the Pennsylvania district. An information was filed in the District Court in the following terms: 2 ' Be it remembered , that on this 16th day of January , one thousand seven hundred and ninety-eight, into the District Court of the United States for the Pennsylvania district, in his proper person comes William Rawle attorney for the said United States...
4 U.S. 222 4 Dall. 222 1 L. Ed. 809 Pollock v. Hall. Same v. Same. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. December Term, 1800 1 THESE causes were referred, on the 22d of January 1800, by agreement of the parties, and several meetings were held by the referees, at which the parties exhibited their respective proofs, and were heard by themselves or their agents. The plaintiff conceiving, however, that he had more evidence, which might be produced at a future period, or conjecturing, that the referees...
4 U.S. 340 (_) 4 Dall. 340 O'Harra versus Hall. Supreme Court of United States. CHASE, Justice. You may explain, but you cannot alter, a written contract, by parol testimony. A case of explanation, implies uncertainty, ambiguity, and doubt, upon the face of the writing. But the proposition now, is a plain case of alteration: that is, an offer to prove by witnesses, that the assignor promised something, beyond the plain words and meaning of his written contract. Such evidence is inadmissible;...
4 U.S. 12 4 Dall. 12 1 L. Ed. 720 Mossman, surviving Executor, Plaintiff in Error, v. Higginson, surviving Partner, Defendant in Error. February Term, 1800 1 THIS was a writ of error, to remove the proceedings on a bill in equity, from the Circuit Court, for the district of Georgia , tested the 27th November 1798, returnable on the next. The case, on the bill and pleadings, was, briefly, this:— Alexander Willy , an inhabitant of Georgia , being indebted to Higginson and Greenwood, British...
4 U.S. 345 4 Dall. 345 1 L. Ed. 860 Hollingsworth v. Fry. Circuit Court, Pennsylvania District. October Term, 1800 1 IN equity. The bill, after setting forth a variety of transactions between the parties, relative to a tract of land, mills, and mill race, in Dauphin county, states, that on the trial of a writ of partition for the premises, they consented to withdraw a juror, and entered into the following agreement, dated the 19th of November 1790: 2 'It is mutually agreed, that judgment shall...
4 U.S. 342 (_) 4 Dall. 342 Evans, qui tam, &c. versus Bollen. Supreme Court of United States. *343 Joseph Thomas, attorney for plaintiff. THIS was a qui tam action, in which the following declara- was filed: "October Session 1797. "In the Circuit Court of the United States for the Pennsylvania "District of the Middle Circuit. "District of Pennsylvania, ss. "George Bollen, late of the district of Pennsylvania, yeoman, "was summoned to answer to the United States and to John "Evans, who sues in...
4 U.S. 22 (_) 4 Dall. 22 Course et al. versus Stead et Ux. et al. Supreme Court of United States. *25 I. Ingersoll, for the defendants in error. By the COURT: The objection is not sufficient to quash the writ of error. The teste may be amended by our own record of the duration of the last term; and it is, of course, amendable. II. Ingersoll objected, that the writ of error was not directed to any Circuit Court; for, its address was "To the Judges of the Circuit Court, holden in and for the...
4 U.S. 14 (1800) 4 Dall. 14 Cooper versus Telfair. Supreme Court of United States. February 13, 1800. *16 The case was argued by E. Tilghman, for the plaintiff, and by Ingersoll and Dallas, for the defendant. *18 On the 13th of February 1800, the Judges (except the Chief Justice, who had decided the cause in the Circuit Court) delivered their opinions, seriatim, in substance as follows: WASHINGTON, Justice. The constitution of Georgia does not expressly interdict the passing of an act of...
4 U.S. 213 4 Dall. 213 1 L. Ed. 805 Chancellor v. Phillips et al. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. September Term, 1800 1 THE following case was submitted for the opinion of the Court: 2 On the 2d of June 1798, a levy was made by the sheriff on a kiln of unburnt bricks, and other property, by virtue of a fi. fa. for a debt of 149 l. 15 s. with interest and costs. The bricks were suffered to remain in this state till the 14th of April 1799, when, on advertising them for sale, it was found that one...
4 U.S. 206 (_) 4 Dall. 206 Bussy versus Donaldson. Supreme Court of United States. After argument by W. Tilghman, M. Levy, and Rawle, for the plaintiff, and by Ingersoli, E. Tilghman, and Lewis, for the *207 defendant, the Judges delivered their opinions to the jury, in substance, as follows. SHIPPEN, Chief Justice. The first object, that naturally presents itself, is to ascertain, whether the injury complained of, was the consequence of gross negligence, or of mere accident This falls,...
4 U.S. 21 (_) 4 Dall. 21 Blair et al. Plaintiffs in Error, versus Miller et al. Supreme Court of United States. By the COURT: The writ has become a nullity, because it was not returned at the proper term. It cannot, of course, be a legal instrument, to bring the record of the Circuit Court before us for revision. [(1)] NOTES [(1)] See post. 22. Course v. Stead et al.
