20 U.S. 158 (1822) 7 Wheat. 158 WATTS v. LINDSEY'S Heirs and Others. Supreme Court of United States. February 10, 1822. March 1, 1822. This cause was argued by Mr. Doddridge for the appellant, and by Mr. Brush for the respondents. *159 Mr. Justice TODD delivered the opinion of the Court. This controversy arises from entries for lands in the Virginia military reservation, lying between the Scioto and Little Miami Rivers, in the district of Ohio. The plaintiff in the court below, (Watts,)...
20 U.S. 283 (1822) 7 Wheat. 283 The SANTISSIMA TRINIDAD, and the ST. AN DE Supreme Court of United States. February 28, 1822. March 12, 1822. *290 Mr. Winder, for the appellant. Mr. Tazewell, contra. *334 Mr. Justice STORY delivered the opinion of the the Court. Upon the argument at the bar several questions have arisen, which have been deliberately considered by the Court; and its judgment will now be pronounced. The first in the order, in which we think it most convenient to consider the...
20 U.S. 490 (1822) 7 Wheat. 490 THE SANTA MARIA. THE Spanish Consul, Libellant. Supreme Court of United States. February 20, 1822. March 14, 1822. *491 Mr. Winder, for the appellant. Mr. D. Hoffman, for the respondent. *494 Mr. Justice LIVINGSTON delivered the opinion of the Court, and after stating the case, proceeded as follows: In a case of so palpable a fitting out and arming in an American port, and proceeding thence directly on a cruize, (whether with or without a commission, is in this...
20 U.S. 520 (1822) 7 Wheat. 520 The MONTE ALLEGRE and the RAINHA DE LOS ANJOS. The Portuguese Consul General, Libellant. Supreme Court of United States. March 14, 1822. March 18, 1822. These causes were argued by Mr. Winder, for the appellant and claimant, and by Mr. D. Hoffman, for the respondent and libellant. Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court. The Monte Allegre was captured by the private armed vessel called La Fortuna, cruising at the time under a commission from...
20 U.S. 551 (1822) 7 Wheat. 551 The IRRESISTIBLE. Daniels, Claimant, Supreme Court of United States. March 20, 1822. Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court. *552 This is an appeal from a sentence of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland, dismissing an information filed in that Court against the brig La Irresistible, as forfeited under the acts of Congress, made for the preservation of the neutrality of the United States. The offence charged...
20 U.S. 471 (1822) 7 Wheat. 471 The GRAN PARA. The Consul General of Portugal, Libellant. Supreme Court of United States. February 20, 1821. March 13, 1822. *473 Mr. Winder, for the appellant and claimant. Mr. D. Hoffman, contra. *486 Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court, and after stating the facts, proceeded as follows: The principle is now firmly settled, that prizes, made by vessels which have violated the acts of Congress, that have been enacted for the...
20 U.S. 496 (1822) 7 Wheat. 496 THE ARROGANTE BARCELONES. The Consul General of Spain, Claimant. Supreme Court of United States. February 22, 1822. March 14, 1822. *498 Mr. Winder, for the appellant and claimant. Mr. D. Hoffman, contra. *517 *518 Mr. Justice JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court. The offence proved upon Almeida in this case is one of a very aggravated nature. He not only violated the neutrality of this government, but effected his purpose, by practising a flagrant fraud,...
20 U.S. 23 (1822) 7 Wheat. 23 TAYLOR'S Lessee v. MYERS. Supreme Court of United States. February 12, 1822. THIS cause was argued at the last term, by Mr. Doddridge, and Mr. Scott, for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Brush, for the defendant. Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court. This case comes on upon two questions, certified by the Circuit Court for the District of Ohio, in which the Judges of that Court were divided in opinion. The following is stated as the case...
20 U.S. 13 (1822) 7 Wheat. 13 TAYLOE v. T. & S. SANDIFORD. Supreme Court of United States. February 5, 1822. February 12, 1822. *14 THIS cause was argued by Mr. Jones, and Mr. Hay, [a] for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Key [b] for the defendants in error. Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a writ of error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of the county of Alexandria, rendered in an action of assumpsit, brought by T. & S. Sandiford against John Tayloe....
20 U.S. 59 (1822) 7 Wheat. 59 RICARD v. WILLIAMS and Others. Supreme Court of United States. February 13, 1822. February 28, 1822. *65 Mr. D.B. Ogden, for the plaintiff in error. Mr. Pinkney, contra. *80 *105 Mr. Justice STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. The principal questions which have arisen, and have been argued here, upon the instructions given by the Circuit Court, and to which alone the Court deem it necessary to direct their attention, are, First, whether upon the facts stated,...
20 U.S. 35 (1822) 7 Wheat. 35 PAGE'S Administrators v. THE BANK OF ALEXANDRIA. Supreme Court of United States. February 8, 1822. February 14, 1822. *36 This cause was argued by Mr. Swann, and Mr. Lee, [a] for the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. Taylor, [b] for the defendants in error. Mr. Justice LIVINGSTON delivered the opinion of the Court, and after stating the case, proceeded as follows: Whether due diligence were used by the holder of the note, is immaterial now to inquire, as this Court...
20 U.S. 7 (1822) 7 Wheat. 7 NEWSOM v. PRYOR'S Lessee. Supreme Court of United States. February 6, 1822. February 11, 1822. THIS cause was argued by Mr. Law, [a] for the *8 plaintiff in error, and by Mr. White, [b] for the defendant in error. Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a writ of error to a judgment given in the Circuit Court for the District of West Tennessee, in an ejectment brought by the defendants in error against the present plaintiff. The...
20 U.S. 164 (1822) 7 Wheat. 164 MATTHEWS v. ZANE and Others. Supreme Court of United States. February 20, 1822. March 1, 1822. *166 Mr. Doddridge, for the appellant. Mr. Hammond, for the respondents. The first point made for the respondents, is, that this Court has no jurisdiction. *202 Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court. This suit was brought in the State Court of Ohio for the purpose of obtaining a conveyance of a tract of land to which the complainant supposed...
20 U.S. 556 (1822) 7 Wheat. 556 MARBURY v. BROOKS. Supreme Court of United States. March 19, 1822. March 21, 1822. *572 This cause was argued by the Attorney-General, and Mr. Key, [a] for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Jones, [b] for the defendant in error. Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a writ of error to a judgment rendered in the Circuit Court of the United States for the county of Washington. In the Circuit Court the controversy turned entirely on...
20 U.S. 530 (1822) 7 Wheat. 530 MACKER'S Heirs v. THOMAS. Supreme Court of United States. March 15, 1822. Mr. Justice WASHINGTON delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a writ of error to a judgment of the Circuit Court for the District of Kentucky. The defendant brought a writ of right in that Court against John Macker, the ancestor of the plaintiff in error, for an undivided moiety in a certain tract of land. After a summons served upon Macker, he died, without having appeared to the suit,...
20 U.S. 212 (1822) 7 Wheat. 212 HOOFNAGLE and Others v. ANDERSON. Supreme Court of United States. February 25, 1822. March 2, 1822. This cause was argued by Mr. Scott and Mr. Doddridge for the appellants, and by Mr. Talbot and Mr. Brush for the respondent. Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court. This suit was brought by the appellants, who were plaintiffs in the Circuit Court for the District of Ohio, to obtain a decree for the conveyance of a tract of land of which the...
20 U.S. 553 (1822) 7 Wheat. 553 HOLBROOK et al. v. THE UNION BANK OF ALEXANDRIA. Supreme Court of United States. March 20, 1822. March 21, 1822. *555 The cause was argued by Mr. Swann, for the appellant, and by Mr. Jones, for the respondent. Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court. The only question is, whether the road stock paid in as part of the capital of the Bank, became the common property of the company, so entirely that it should be sold and distributed among the...
20 U.S. 27 (1822) 7 Wheat. 27 GREEN v. WATKINS. Supreme Court of United States. February 5, 1822. February 12, 1822. *28 THIS cause was argued by Mr. Montgomery, for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. B. Hardin, for the defendant. Mr. Justice STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. The record in this case presents a great variety of facts, out of which several important questions have arisen; but as the merits of the cause may, in the opinion of the Court, be completely disposed of by the...
21 U.S. 217 (_) 8 Wheat. 217 GOLDSBOROUGH, Plaintiff in Error v. ORR, Defendant in Error. Supreme Court of United States. THIS cause was argued at the last term by Mr. Lear, [a] for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Jones, [b] for the defendant. *218 Mr. Justice STORY delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a case originating under the attachment act of Maryland of 1795, (ch. 56.) and brought to this Court upon a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, for...
20 U.S. 38 (1822) 7 Wheat. 38 Ex parte KEARNEY. Supreme Court of United States. February 9, 1822. February 25, 1822. *39 Mr Jones moved for a habeas corpus. Mr. Jones, for the petitioner. Mr. Swann, ( District-Attorney, ) contra. *40 *41 Mr. Justice STORY delivered the opinion of the Court, and after stating the case, proceeded as follows: Upon the argument of this motion, two questions have been made: first, whether this Court has authority to issue a habeas corpus, where a person is in jail,...
