14 U.S. 233 (1816) 1 Wheat. 233 WELCH v. MANDEVILLE. Supreme Court of United States. March 11, 1816. *235 The cause was argued by Lee, for the plaintiff, and Swann, for the defendant. STORY, J., delivered the opinion of the court. The question upon these pleadings comes to this, whether a nominal plaintiff, suing for the benefit of *236 his assignee, can, by a dismissal of the suit under a collusive agreement with the defendant, create a valid bar against any subsequent suit for the same cause...
14 U.S. 292 4 L. Ed. 94 1 Wheat. 292 WALDEN v. THE HEIRS OF GRATZ. March 18, 1816 1 ERROR to the circuit court for the district of Kentucky. This was an action of ejectment in which the defendants in error were the lessors of the plaintiff in the court below. The declaration in ejectment was returned to the November term of that court, 1813. At the May term, 1814, the suit was abated as to one defendant; judgment by default was entered against Joseph Day, another defendant; and the defendants...
14 U.S. 415 (1816) 1 Wheat. 415 The UNITED STATES v. COOLIDGE, et. al. Supreme Court of United States. March 21, 1816. The Attorney-General stated that he had given to this case an anxious attention; as much so, he hoped, as his public duty, under whatever view of it, rendered necessary. *416 JOHNSON, J. delivered the opinion of the court. Upon the question now before the court a difference of opinion has existed, and still exists, among the members of the court. We should, therefore, have been...
14 U.S. 75 (1816) 1 Wheat. 75 THOMPSON v. GRAY. Supreme Court of United States. February 27, 1816. *80 Jones, for the plaintiff in error. Swann, contra. *81 MARSHALL, Ch. J., delivered the opinion of the court, and, after stating the facts, proceeded as follows: The question on which the correctness of the opinions given by the circuit court depends, is this: Was the purchase and sale of the twelve books not delivered, so complete, that the tickets had become the property, and were at the risk...
14 U.S. 112 (1816) 1 Wheat. 112 The Venus. J ADEMEROWSKY, Claimant. Supreme Court of United States. March 2, 1816. *113 Charleton, for the appellant and claimant. MARSHALL, Ch. J. If, upon the opening, it appears to be a case for farther proof, then it may be admitted instanter, unless, indeed, the court should be of the opinion that the captors ought to be allowed to produce farther proof also. The cause is before us as if in the inferior court. Charleton. We contend that it is a case entitled...
14 U.S. 417 (1816) 1 Wheat. 417 The St. Nicholas. MEYER ET AL. Claimants. Supreme Court of United States. March 21, 1816. *418 The cause was argued by Key and Harper, for the appellants and claimants, and by Pinkney and Charleton, for the respondents and captors. JOHNSON, J., delivered the opinion of the court as follows: This case presents itself in this court under a cloud of circumstances unusually threatening. There is scarcely wanting in it one of those characteristics by which courts of...
14 U.S. 208 (1816) 1 Wheat. 208 The St. Joze Indiano. LIZAUR, Claimant. Supreme Court of United States. March 9, 1816. *209 Harper, for the appellant and claimant. Dexter, for the respondents and captors. *211 STORY, J., delivered the opinion of the court, and, after stating the facts, proceeded as follows: The single question presented on these facts is, in whom the property was vested at the time of its transit; if in Mr. Lizaur, then it is to be restored; if in the shippers, then it is to be...
14 U.S. 20 4 L. Ed. 25 1 Wheat. 20 The Ship Octavia .—NICHOLLS et al., Claimants . February 13, 1816 APPEAL from the decree of the circuit court for the Massachusetts district, affirming the decree of the district court, condemning said vessel. This ship was seized in the port of Boston, in October, 1810; and the information alleges, that the ship, in March, 1810, departed from Charleston, S. C., bound for a foreign port, to wit, Liverpool in Great Britain, with a cargo of merchandise on board,...
14 U.S. 9 (1816) 1 Wheat. 9 The Samuel. PIERCE and BEACH, Claimants. Supreme Court of United States. February 12, 1816. *10 Daggett, for the claimants. *13 MARSHALL, Ch. J., delivered the opinion of the court. On the part of the claimants it is contended, 1st. That the proceedings ought to have been at common law, and not in the admiralty. 2d. That the information, if it be one, is insufficient. 3d. That the testimony is wholly insufficient to warrant a condemnation. In arguing the first point,...
14 U.S. 62 4 L. Ed. 37 1 Wheat. 62 The Rugen .—BUHRING, Claimant . February 20, 1816 APPEAL from the circuit court for the district of Georgia. The Schooner Rugen and cargo were libelled in the district court for that district, as prize of war, either as belonging to the enemies of the United States, or as the property of citizens who had been trading with the enemy. A claim was interposed by Mr. Buhring, a subject of the king of Sweden, on the ground that both vessel and cargo belonged to him,...
14 U.S. 171 (1816) 1 Wheat. 171 The Nereid. PINTO, Claimant. Supreme Court of United States. March 6, 1816. *174 Hoffman, for the appellant and claimant. Pinkney, for the respondents and captors. *178 MARSHALL, Ch. J., delivered the opinion of the court. that the goods were chargeable with the same rate of duties as goods imported in foreign bottoms, according to the decision in the case of the Concord. at the last term.
14 U.S. 46 4 L. Ed. 32 1 Wheat. 46 The Mary and Susan .—RICHARDSON, Claimant . February 13, 1816 APPEAL from the Circuit Court for the district of New-York. This was a claim by Mr. Richardson for a portion of the cargo of the same ship mentioned in the preceding cause, which portion was condemned in the district and circuit courts. The claimant, a native of Great Britain, and a naturalized citizen of the United States, was a resident merchant of Liverpool at the breaking out of the late war,...
14 U.S. 25 4 L. Ed. 27 1 Wheat. 25 The Mary and Susan .—G. & H. VAN WAGENEN, Claimants . February 13, 1816 1 APPEAL from the circuit court for the district of New-York. The goods in question were part of the cargo of the ship Mary and Susan, a merchant vessel of the United States, which was captured on the 3d of September, 1812, by the Tickler, a private armed vessel of the United States. The cargo was libelled as prize of war; this portion claimed by Messrs. G. & H. Van Wagenen, and condemned...
14 U.S. 440 (1816) 1 Wheat. 440 The Hiram. CORNTHWAIT ET AL. Claimants. Supreme Court of United States. *441 Pinkney, for the appellants and claimants. Dexter, for the respondents and captors. *443 *444 MARSHALL, Ch. J., delivered the opinion of the court. When the claimants, in this case, applied to the circuit court to be let in to farther proof, for the purpose of showing their ignorance of the fact that the Hiram sailed under the protection of a British license, the judge of that court...
14 U.S. 298 (1816) 1 Wheat. 298 The Harrison. HERBERT, Claimant. Supreme Court of United States. March 18, 1816. *299 STORY, J., delivered the opinion of the court. We have considered this question with a view to the general rules of practice. Whenever a prize is brought to adjudication in the admiralty, if, upon the hearing of the cause upon the ship's papers, and the evidence taken in preparatory, the property appears to belong to enemies, it is immediately condemned. If its national...
14 U.S. 408 (1816) 1 Wheat. 408 The George, The Bothnea, and The Janstaff. Supreme Court of United States. *409 The first case was argued by Dexter and G. Sullivan, for the appellants and captors, and by the attorney-general, for the United States. The two last by Winder, and Harper for the appellants and captors, and by Dexter and Pinkney, for the United States. MARSHALL, Ch. J., delivered the opinion of the court as follows: The first question to be discussed is, the propriety of allowing...
14 U.S. 439 4 L. Ed. 130 1 Wheat. 439 The Elsineur .—JONES, Claimant . March 21, 1816 1 APPEAL from the circuit court for the district of Georgia. 2 In this case, which was principally a question of fact, Pinkney and Charleton , for the claimant, stated, that the condemnation in the court below was partly grounded on a comparison of certain documents in this case, with a paper invoked from the Stackelburg , another prize cause brought from the same court; that comparison of hands can never be...
14 U.S. 261 (1816) 1 Wheat. 261 The Edward. SCOTT, Claimant. Supreme Court of United States. March 15, 1816. *262 Harper, for the appellants and claimant. The Attorney-General and Law, for the respondents. *264 WASHINGTON, J., delivered the opinion of the court, and, after stating the facts, proceeded as follows: Three questions have been made and discussed by the counsel, 1st. Whether the circuit court could, upon the appeal, allow the introduction of a new allegation into the information by...
14 U.S. 91 4 L. Ed. 44 1 Wheat. 91 THE CORPORATION OF NEW-ORLEANS v. WINTER ET AL. February 28, 1816 1 ERROR from the district court for the district of Louisiana. The defendants in error commenced their suit in the said court, to recover the possession and property of certain lands in the city of New-Orleans; claiming title as the heirs of Elisha Winter, deceased, under an alleged grant from the Spanish government, in 1791; which lands, it was stated, were afterwards reclaimed by the Baron de...
14 U.S. 382 (1816) 1 Wheat. 382 The Commercen. LINDGREN, Claimant. Supreme Court of United States. March 21, 1816. *383 Key, for the appellant and claimants. Dexter, for the respondents and captors. *387 STORY, J., delivered the opinion of the court. The single point now in controversy in this cause is, whether the ship is entitled to the freight for the voyage. The general rule that the neutral carrier of enemy's property is entitled to his freight, is now too firmly established to admit of...
