47 U.S. 7 6 How. 7 12 L. Ed. 321 WILLIAM M. GWIN, LATE MARSHAL, AND JACOB S. YERGER AND ROBERT HUGHES, HIS SURETIES, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. C. T. AND A. BARTON, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR. January Term, 1848 THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi, under the following circumstances. At May term, 1843, viz. on the 5th of May, the following notice was filed. To William M. Gwin, late Marshal of the Southern District...
46 U.S. 441 (_) 5 How. 441 NATHANIEL S. WARING AND PETER DALMAN, OWNERS OF THE STEAMBOAT DE SOTO, HER TACKLE, APPAREL, AND FURNITURE, APPELLANTS, v. THOMAS CLARKE, LATE MASTER OF THE STEAMBOAT LUDA, AND AGENT OF P.T. MARIONOUX AND T.J. ABEL, OWNERS OF SAID STEAMBOAT LUDA, HER TACKLE, APPAREL, FURNITURE, AND MACHINERY, APPELLEES. Supreme Court of United States. *451 The cause was argued by Mr. Johnson, for the appellants, and Mr. Crittenden, for the appellees. Mr. Justice WAYNE delivered the...
46 U.S. 382 (_) 5 How. 382 THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. THE BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. Supreme Court of United States. *386 The cause was argued by Mr. Clifford (the Attorney-General) and Mr. Nelson, for the United States, the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. Sergeant, for the Bank. Mr. Clifford assigned five causes of error, viz.: &mdash. *394 Mr. Justice CATRON delivered the opinion of the court. The United States sued the Bank of the United States for a dividend on stocks held...
46 U.S. 10 (_) 5 How. 10 THE UNITED STATES, APPELLANT, v. JOSEPH LAWTON, EXECUTOR OF CHARLES LAWTON, MARTHA POLLARD, HANNAH MARIA KERSHAW, WIFE OF JAMES KERSHAW, ET AL. Supreme Court of United States. *23 The cause was argued at the preceding term by Mr. Mason (then Attorney-General), for the United States, and by Mr. Yulee, for the appellee, and held over to the present term under a curia. Mr. Mason, for the United States, made four points. *26 Mr. Justice CATRON delivered the opinion of the...
46 U.S. 208 (_) 5 How. 208 THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF, v. EPHRAIM BRIGGS. Supreme Court of United States. *209 The cause was argued by Mr. Clifford (Attorney-General) and Mr. Norvell, on behalf of the United States. Mr. Chief Justice TANEY, after stating the case as above, proceeded to deliver the opinion of the court. The act of Congress of April 29, 1802, ch. 31, ยง 6, provides, that whenever a question shall occur before a Circuit Court, upon which the opinions of the judges shall be...
46 U.S. 141 (_) 5 How. 141 BENNET R. TRULY, COMPLAINANT AND APPELLANT, v. MOSES WANZER, JABEZ HARRISON, AND JOHN R. NICHOLSON. Supreme Court of United States. The case was argued by Mr. Crittenden, for the appellant, and Mr. Coxe, for the appellees. Mr. Justice GRIER delivered the opinion of the court. It is not easy to apprehend or appreciate the grounds upon which the complainant in this case has invoked the aid of a court of chancery. He purchased some negroes from one Herbert, in 1836, to...
46 U.S. 504 (_) 5 How. 504 SAMUEL THURLOW, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. JOEL FLETCHER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS. ANDREW PEIRCE, JR., AND THOMAS W. PEIRCE, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. Supreme Court of United States. *511 It was argued in January, 1845, by Mr. Choate and Mr. Webster, for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. Huntington, for the State. Being ordered to be reargued, it was now argued...
47 U.S. 11 6 How. 11 12 L. Ed. 323 THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFFS, v. JAMES AND JOHN G. DANIEL, EXECUTORS OF BEVERLY DANIEL, LATE U. S. MARSHAL. January Term, 1848 THIS case came up from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of North Carolina, on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges thereof. In August, 1841, the United States brought an action of trespass on the case against the defendants, as executors of Beverly Daniel, late marshal, and at May term, 1843,...
47 U.S. 31 (_) 6 How. 31 THE PRESIDENT, DIRECTORS, AND COMPANY OF THE BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. HENRY K. MOSS, WILLIAM H. SHELTON, ROBERT A. PATRICK, AND CHARLES LYNCH, DEFENDANTS. Supreme Court of United States. *33 The cause was argued by Mr. G.M. Wharton and Mr. Sergeant, for the plaintiffs in error, no counsel appearing for the defendants in error. *36 Mr. Justice WOODBURY delivered the opinion of the court. In this case, at the November term of the Circuit Court...
46 U.S. 233 (_) 5 How. 233 WILLIAM TAYLOR, GEORGE TAYLOR, WILLIAM PRIMROSE, AND ELIZA, HIS WIFE, GEORGE PORTER, AND ELSPET, HIS WIFE, WILLIAM RAINEY, ALEXANDER RAINEY, AND ELIZABETH RAINEY, COMPLAINANTS AND APPELLANTS, v. VINCENT M. BENHAM, ADMINISTRATOR DE BONIS NON, WITH THE WILL ANNEXED, OF SAMUEL SAVAGE, DECEASED, RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE. VINCENT M. BENHAM, &c., v. GEORGE TAYLOR, &c. Supreme Court of United States. *249 It was argued by Mr. Morehead and Mr. Sergeant, for Savage's...
47 U.S. 1 (_) 6 How. 1 BENJAMIN G. SIMS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. THOMAS HUNDLEY. Supreme Court of United States. *5 It was argued by Mr. Bibb, for the plaintiff in error, no counsel appearing for the defendant in error. Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court. This case is brought up by writ of error directed to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi, upon a judgment obtained by the defendant in error against the plaintiff for the...
46 U.S. 6 (_) 5 How. 6 STEPHEN SEWALL, APPELLANT, v. HENRY V. CHAMBERLAIN. Supreme Court of United States. Mr. Dargan moved to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Mr. Justice WAYNE delivered the opinion of the court. This cause having been regularly docketed, the appellee now moves the court to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the amount in controversy is not large enough to bring the case within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. We have examined the record and...
46 U.S. 343 (_) 5 How. 343 JOHN SCOTT AND CARL BOLAND, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. JOHN JONES, LESSEE OF THE DETROIT YOUNG MEN'S SOCIETY, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR. Supreme Court of United States. *347 It was argued by Mr. Woodbridge, for the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. Howard and Mr. Hand (in a printed argument), for the defendants in error. *374 Mr. Justice WOODBURY delivered the opinion of the court. I am instructed by the court to say its opinion in this case is, that it possesses no jurisdiction...
46 U.S. 69 5 How. 69 12 L. Ed. 54 SAMUEL HILDEBURN, PLAINTIFF, v. HENRY TURNER, DEFENDANT. January Term, 1847 THIS case came up on a certificate of division in opinion from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi. The point of difference is fully set forth in the opinion of the court. It was argued by Mr. Brent , for the plaintiff, and Mr. Bibb , for the defendant. Mr. Brent , for plaintiff. The single question is on the admissibility of the notarial...
46 U.S. 134 (_) 5 How. 134 JOHN A. ROWAN AND JOHN L. HARRIS, COPARTNERS IN TRADE UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF ROWAN AND HARRIS, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. HIRAM G. RUNNELS, DEFENDANT IN ERROR. SAME v. SAME. Supreme Court of United States. *135 Mr. Nelson, for the plaintiffs in error. Mr. Bibb, for appellees. *138 Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court. This action was brought in the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, by the plaintiffs, upon a promissory note...
46 U.S. 127 (_) 5 How. 127 JOHN. G. NELSON, CHARLES G. CARLETON, WILLIAM H. STEWART (PARTNERS IN TRADE UNDER THE NAME OF NELSON, CARLETON, & CO.), HENRY PARISH, DANIEL PARISH, JOHN R. MARSHALL, JOHN B. SEAMAN, THOMAS PARISH, LEROY M. WILEY (PARTNERS IN TRADE UNDER THE NAME OF PARISH, MARSHALL, & CO.), APPELLANTS, v. JOHN J. HILL, JOHN P. LIPSCOMB, ABSALOM HARDIN, LORENZO I. SEXTON AND ANN R. SEXTON (HIS WIFE), AND JAMES GRAY, DEFENDANTS. Supreme Court of United States. *129 The cause was argued...
46 U.S. 213 (_) 5 How. 213 MINERS' BANK OF DUBUQUE, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. THE UNITED STATES EX REL. JAMES GRANT. Supreme Court of United States. Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court. This case has been brought here by a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Iowa. A motion has been made to dismiss the writ upon several grounds, and among others, upon the ground that the judgment of the Territorial court is not a final one; and therefore, under the act of...
46 U.S. 72 (_) 5 How. 72 HENRY MILLER, ADMINISTRATOR OF GEORGE MILLER, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. BETSEY HERBERT AND CAROLINE HERBERT, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR. Supreme Court of United States. *75 It was argued by Mr. Coxe, for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. Lawrence, for the defendants in error. *78 Mr. Justice DANIEL, after having read the statement of the case at the commencement of this report, proceeded to deliver the opinion of the court. By the statute of Maryland, passed in 1715, cap....
46 U.S. 53 (_) 5 How. 53 MORGAN McAFEE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. THOMAS C. DOREMUS, JAMES SUYDAM, CORNELIUS R. SUYDAM, AND JOHN NIXON. Supreme Court of United States. *60 The cause was argued by Mr. Chalmers and Mr. Coxe, for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Stanton and Mr. Z. Collins Lee, for the defendants in error. *62 Mr. Justice McLEAN delivered the opinion of the court. This case is brought before this court by a writ of error to the District Court of the Northern District of Mississippi....
46 U.S. 215 (_) 5 How. 215 WHARTON JONES, PLAINTIFF, v. JOHN VAN ZANDT. Supreme Court of United States. *223 The case was submitted on printed argument, by Mr. Morehead, for the plaintiff, and Mr. Chase and Mr. Seward, for the defendant. Mr. Justice WOODBURY delivered the opinion of the court. This case comes here on a division of opinion in the Circuit Court of Ohio. The subject-matter of the original suit was debt for a penalty of $500, under the act of Congress of February 12th, 1793, for...
