9 U.S. 45 5 Cranch 45 3 L. Ed. 32 YOUNG v. THE BANK OF ALEXANDRIA. February Term, 1809 1 ERROR to the circuit court of the district of Coumbia, sitting in Alexandria, in an action of debt upon a promissory note, negotiable in the bank of Alexandria, made by Young to Yeaton , and by him encorsed to the bank. 2 The only question now argued, was whether the court below erred in ruling the plaintiff in error into a trial at the return term of the writ. 3 The bill of exceptions set forth the capias...
9 U.S. 335 5 Cranch 335 3 L. Ed. 117 YEATON v. FRY. February Term, 1809 1 ERROR to the circuit court of the district of Columbia, in an action on the case upon a policy of insurance on the brig Richard, at and from Tobago to one or more ports in the West Indies, and at and from thence to Norfolk . The following clause was inserted in the body of the policy. ' This insurance is declared to be made against all risks, blockaded ports and Hispaniola excepted .' And at the foot of the policy was the...
9 U.S. 49 (1809) 5 Cranch 49 YEATON v. THE BANK OF ALEXANDRIA. Supreme Court of United States. March 10, 1809. *50 Youngs, for the plaintiff in error. *51 MARSHALL, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court as follows, viz. The question in this case is, whether the endorsor of a note negotiable in the bank of Alexandria, if such endorsement be for accommodation, may be sued by the bank, before a suit shall be instituted against the maker, if the maker be solvent. In Virginia, the endorsor of a...
9 U.S. 281 5 Cranch 281 3 L. Ed. 101 YEATON AND OTHERS, CLAIMANTS OF THE SCHOONER GENERAL PINKNEY AND CARGO, v. THE UNITED STATES. February Term, 1809 1 THIS was an appeal from the sentence of the circuit court for the district of Maryland, which condemned the schooner General Pinkney and cargo, for breach of the act of congress prohibiting intercourse with certain ports of the island of St. Domingo; passed February , 28 th 1806. Vol. 8, p. 11. This act was limited to one year; but by the act...
9 U.S. 321 (1809) 5 Cranch 321 WELSH v. MANDEVILLE AND JAMESSON. Supreme Court of United States. E.J. Lee, contra. THE COURT refused to take up the case without consent, although thirty days had then (March 9, when the cause was called for hearing) elapsed since the service of the citation; and observed, that the case of Lloyd v. Alexander only decided that the court will not take up the case until thirty days have expired since the service of the citation; but it did not decide that the court...
9 U.S. 142 (1809) 5 Cranch 142 VIOLETT v. PATTON. Supreme Court of United States. February 23, 1809. *143 E.J. Lee, for the plaintiff in error. Swann, contra. *148 MARSHALL, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court as follows: This case comes on upon two exceptions; one to the opinion of the circuit court given to the jury, and the other to the refusal of that court to give an *149 opinion which was prayed by the counsel for the defendant below. The declaration contains two counts. One upon...
9 U.S. 1 (1809) 5 Cranch 1 THE UNITED STATES v. WEEKS. Supreme Court of United States. THE writ of error in this case was dismissed by the assent of the attorney-general, it having been issued from this court directly to the District Court for MAIN District; whereas by the 10th sect. of the judiciary act of 1789, vol. 1. p. 55. writs of error lie from decisions in that court to the circuit court of Massachusetts in the same manner as from other district courts to their respective circuit courts;...
9 U.S. 311 (1809) 5 Cranch 311 THE UNITED STATES v. RIDDLE. Supreme Court of United States. *312 Rodney, Attorney-General for the United States. Swann, contra. MARSHALL, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court to the following effect: The court thinks this case too plain to admit of argument, or to require deliberation. It is not within even the letter of the law, and it is certainly not within its spirit. The law did not intend to punish the intention, but the attempt to defraud the revenue....
9 U.S. 284 (1809) 5 Cranch 284 THE UNITED STATES v. POTTS AND OTHERS Supreme Court of United States. March 7, 1809. *285 Harper, for the defendants. Rodney, Attorney-General. *286 MARSHALL, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court to the following effect: The opinion of this court is, that copper plates turned up at the edge are exempt from duty, although *287 imported under the denomination of raised bottoms. It appears to have been the policy of the United States to distinguish between raw...
9 U.S. 115 (1809) 5 Cranch 115 THE UNITED STATES v. JUDGE PETERS. Supreme Court of United States. February 20, 1809. *135 John Serjeant, attorney for defendants. MARSHALL, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court as follows: With great attention, and with serious concern, the court has considered the return made by the judge for the district of Pennsylvania to the mandamus directing him to execute the sentence pronounced by him in the case of Gideon Olmstead and others v. Rittenhouse's...
9 U.S. 34 (1809) 5 Cranch 34 JOHN AND JAMES TUCKER v. OXLEY, ASSIGNEE OF T. MOORE, A BANKRUPT. Supreme Court of United States. February 15, 1809. *36 C. Simms, for the plaintiff in error. Jones, contra. *39 MARSHALL, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court, as follows: In this case the plaintiffs in error, who were defendants in the circuit court, claimed to set off against a debt due from them to Thomas Moore, the bankrupt, a debt previously due to them from the firm of H. and T. Moore,...
9 U.S. 368 5 Cranch 368 3 L. Ed. 128 THE UNITED STATES v. VOWELL AND M'CLEAN. February Term, 1810 1 ERROR to the circuit court of the United States, for the district of Columbia, in an action of debt upon a bond given by the defendants in error to the United States, for duties on a cargo of salt from St. Ubes, which arrived and came to anchor within the collection district of Alexandria, sixteen miles below the town and port of Alexandria , on the 23 d of December , 1807, but did not arrive at...
9 U.S. 257 5 Cranch 257 3 L. Ed. 94 THE UNITED STATES v. JOHN ARTHUR AND ROBERT PATTERSON. February Term, 1809 ERROR to the Kentucky district court of the United States, in an action of debt on a bond for 6,000 dollars. The capias ad respondendum issued on the 28th of June, 1803, returnable to the first Monday of July in the same year, and was served on the 30th of June. The declaration was in the usual form of an action of debt for the penalty of the bond with a profert , but without setting...
9 U.S. 280 5 Cranch 280 3 L. Ed. 101 THE UNITED STATES v. EVANS. February Term, 1809 1 ERROR to the district court for the Kentucky district. 2 In the court below, the judge at the trial rejected certain testimony which was offered by the attorney for the United States, who thereupon took a bill of exceptions, and became nonsuit , and afterwards, at the same term, moved the court to set aside the nonsuit and grant a new trial, upon the ground that the judge had erred in rejecting the testimony....
9 U.S. 187 5 Cranch 187 3 L. Ed. 74 THE MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY OF ALEXANDRIA v. JAMES YOUNG. February Term, 1809 ERROR to the circuit court of the district of Columbia, sitting at Alexandria, in an action of covenant, brought by the defendant in error upon a policy of insurance under the corporate seal of the plaintiffs in error. The point in issue, in the court below, was, whether the insured, on the 11th of December, 1800, when he wrote his order for insurance, had notice of a storm which...
9 U.S. 57 5 Cranch 57 3 L. Ed. 36 THE HOPE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PROVIDENCE v. BOARDMAN ET AL. February Term, 1809 1 ERROR to the circuit court for the district of Rhode Island, in an action upon a policy of insurance. 2 The only question decided in this court was that relative to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. 3 The parties were described in the declaration as follows: ' William Henderson Boardman, and Pascal Paoli Pope, both of Boston, in the district of Massachusetts,...
9 U.S. 234 (1809) 5 Cranch 234 TAYLOR AND QUARLES v. BROWN. Supreme Court of United States. March 1, 1809. *235 P.B. Key and Rowan, for the complainants, (the plaintiffs in error.) *236 Pope and Swann, contra. *241 MARSHALL, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court. In this case the title of both parties originates in surveys made by the surveyor of Fincastle county, previous to the passage of the land law of Virginia. Both surveys were made on military warrants issued under the proclamation...
9 U.S. 372 5 Cranch 372 3 L. Ed. 129 SLOOP SALLY v. THE UNITED STATES. February Term, 1810 1 THIS was an appeal from the sentence of the district court for the district of Maine , condemning the sloop Sally and cargo for violation of the revenue laws of the United States. The appeal was directly to this court. 2 Rodney, Attorney-General . 3 No appeal lies from that court directly to this in a case where that court acts in the capacity of a district court. In such cases the appeal is expressly...
9 U.S. 363 5 Cranch 363 3 L. Ed. 126 SLACUM v. SIMMS AND WISE. February Term, 1809 1 ERROR to the circuit court for the district of Columbia, sitting at Alexandria. 2 The former judgment of the court below having been reversed in this court at February term 1806, ante, vol. 3. p. 300. and remanded for further proceedings, the following statement of facts, in the nature of a special verdict, was agreed upon by the parties. 3 That the defendants executed the bond in the declaration mentioned....
9 U.S. 287 (1809) 5 Cranch 287 RUSH v. PARKER Supreme Court of United States. March 15, 1809. I.P. Boyd, for the defendant in error. The court granted. LIVINGSTON, J. thought that leave ought not to be given, on account of the delay it would produce. He had found a practice established here of receiving such affidavits; but he did not know of any case in which time had been given to produce them; and he would not consent to give it now. The case was *288 brought up to last term. The party ought...
