50 U.S. 213 (1850) 9 How. 213 ROBERT M. WITHERS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. WILLIAM B. GREENE, ADMINISTRATOR OF RICHARD MAY, DECEASED. Supreme Court of United States. *216 It was argued by Mr. John Y. Mason, for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. Bayly, for the defendant in error. Mr. Mason, for the plaintiff in error. *220 Mr. Justice DANIEL delivered the opinion of the court. This cause, from the District Court of the United States for the Middle District of Alabama, is brought here under the act of...
50 U.S. 109 (1850) 9 How. 109 JAMES G. WILSON, APPELLANT, v. ANDREW P. SIMPSON, E.E. SIMPSON, JOSEPH FORSYTH, AND BAGDAD MILLS. Supreme Court of United States. *111 The cause was argued by Mr. Seward and Mr. Webster, for the appellant, and by Mr. Gilpin and Mr. Westcott, for the appellees. *120 Mr. Justice WAYNE delivered the opinion of the court. In the argument of this case, the counsel for the appellant put his right to the relief sought by his bill upon two points. We will consider them in...
49 U.S. 107 (1850) 8 How. 107 THOMAS WILLIAMS, ADMINISTRATOR OF BENJAMIN J. BALDWIN, DECEASED, APPELLANT, v. JOHN W. AND WILLIAM BENEDICT, TRADING UNDER THE FIRM AND STYLE OF BENEDICT & BENEDICT. Supreme Court of United States. *108 The case was argued by Mr. Frederic P. Stanton, for the appellant, and Mr. Featherston, for the appellees. *111 Mr. JUSTICE GRIER delivered the opinion of the court. The only question raised in this case depends on the construction of the peculiar statutes of...
49 U.S. 565 (1850) 8 How. 565 CHARLES A. WILLIAMSON AND CATHARINE H. WILLIAMSON, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS, v. THE IRISH PRESBYTERIAN CONGREGATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK. Supreme Court of United States. Mr. Justice WAYNE delivered the opinion of the court. In this case the points certified to this court are identical with those certified in the case of Williamson and Wife v. *566 Joseph Berry, except the eighth. We direct that our rulings in that case shall be sent to the Circuit Court, as our...
49 U.S. 495 (1850) 8 How. 495 CHARLES A. WILLIAMSON AND CATHARINE, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS, v. JOSEPH BERRY Supreme Court of United States. *511 Upon this certificate, the case came up to this court. It was argued, in conjunction with the next two cases which will be reported in this volume, by Mr. Field and Mr. Webster, for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Jay and Mr. Wood, for the defendants. Mr. Flanagan also filed a brief for the defendants. *531 Mr. Justice WAYNE delivered the opinion of the court....
49 U.S. 566 (1850) 8 How. 566 CHARLES A. WILLIAMSON AND CATHARINE H. WILLIAMSON, HIS WIFE, RUPERT J. COCHRAN AND ISABELLA M., HIS WIFE, AND BAYARD CLARKE, PLAINTIFFS, v. GEORGE BALL. Supreme Court of United States. *567 Mr. Justice WAYNE delivered the opinion of the court. In this case Thomas B. Clarke made a conveyance of the premises in dispute to Albert Chrystie for a debt, of $525; and the approval of the master in chancery is indorsed upon the deed. The plaintiff objected to it as any...
50 U.S. 55 (1850) 9 How. 55 WILLIAM WHEELER, APPELLANT, v. HUGH SMITH AND PHINEAS JANNEY, EXECUTORS OF CHARLES BENNETT, DECEASED, AND SURVIVING TRUSTEES UNDER HIS WILL, AND MOLLY E. TAYLOR, EXECUTRIX, AND HENRY DAINGERFIELD AND PHINEAS JANNEY, EXECUTORS OF ROBERT I. TAYLOR, DECEASED, WHO WAS AN EXECUTOR AND TRUSTEE UNDER THE SAME WILL, HUGH C. SMITH, EXECUTOR OF THE SAME CHARLES BENNETT, AND THE COMMON COUNCIL OF ALEXANDRIA, DEFENDANTS. Supreme Court of United States. *63 It was argued by Mr....
49 U.S. 402 (1850) 8 How. 402 JOHN WEST, APPELLANT, v. JOSEPH SMITH AND ELLEN, HIS WIFE. Supreme Court of United States. *404 The cause was argued by Mr. Jones, for the appellant, and Mr. Neale and Mr. Davis, for the appellees. Mr. Neale, for defendants in error. *409 Mr. Justice WOODBURY delivered the opinion of the court. The original proceeding in this case was a bill in chancery instituted in September, 1839, in the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, sitting for the County of...
51 U.S. 54 (_) 10 How. 54 HENRY WEBSTER, PLAINTIFF, v. PETER COOPER. Supreme Court of United States. The cause was argued by Mr. Dexter and Mr. E.H. Daveis, for the plaintiff, and Mr. Allen, for the defendant. Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court. This case has been argued at the bar upon points certified as upon a division of opinion in the Circuit Court. But it appears by the record that the whole case has been divided into points and sent up to this court, and several...
49 U.S. 234 (1850) 8 How. 234 MOSES WANZER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. TULLIUS C. TUPPER AND JOHN H. ROLLINS, UNDER THE FIRM OF TUPPER & ROLLINS. Supreme Court of United States. It was argued in this court by Mr. Coxe, for the plaintiff in error, no counsel appearing for the defendants. Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court. In this case, the Circuit Court for the Southern District of *235 Mississippi decided, that the holder of an inland bill of exchange drawn and accepted in...
50 U.S. 34 (1850) 9 How. 34 RICHARD WALDEN AND OTHERS, HEIRS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF AMBROSE WALDEN, DECEASED, APPELLANTS, v. THOMAS BODLEY'S HEIRS AND REPRESENTATIVES, ROBERT POGUE'S HEIRS AND REPRESENTATIVES, AND OTHERS. SAME v. SAME. Supreme Court of United States. *35 It was argued by Mr. Underwood for the appellants, and Mr. C.S. Morehead for the appellees. Mr. Justice CATRON delivered the opinion of the court. These two cases were appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States for the...
49 U.S. 134 (1850) 8 How. 134 SAMUEL VEAZIE, COMPLAINANT AND APPELLANT, v. NATHANIEL L. WILLIAMS AND STEPHEN WILLIAMS, DEFENDANTS. Supreme Court of United States. *147 It was very elaborately argued by Mr. Fessenden and Mr. Webster, for the complainant and appellant, Veazie, and by Mr. Davies and Mr. Gilpin, for the defendants. *149 Mr. Justice WOODBURY delivered the opinion of the court. This was an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court in the Maine District, dismissing a bill which was...
50 U.S. 501 (1850) 9 How. 501 THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. JOHN S. ROBERTS AND JAMES F. REED, SURVIVORS OF JAMES ADAMS. Supreme Court of United States. *516 It was argued by Mr. Johnson (Attorney-General), for the United States, no counsel appearing for the defendants in error. *517 Mr. Justice WAYNE delivered the opinion of the court. There cannot be either security or efficiency in the business of the Post-Office Department, unless its receipts and disbursements are made upon a...
50 U.S. 127 (1850) 9 How. 127 THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. JOSEPH REYNES. Supreme Court of United States. *136 The cause was argued for the appellants by Mr. Johnson (Attorney-General), and by Messrs. Brent and May, for the appellee. *143 Mr. Justice DANIEL delivered the opinion of the court. The petitioner in the court below, as the heir of Jose Reynes, claimed under a grant from the government of Spain, *144 forty thousand arpents of land, lying within what was formerly the...
50 U.S. 83 (1850) 9 How. 83 THE UNITED STATES, APPELLANTS v. ELI R. PRICE, EXECUTOR OF JOSEPH ARCHER. SAME v. SAME. Supreme Court of United States. *85 They were argued by Mr. Johnson (Attorney-General), for the appellants, and by Mr. Miles, for the appellee. *90 Mr. Justice GRIER delivered the opinion of the Court. As the decision of one of the points raised in these cases will rule them both, it will be unnecessary to notice the others. The complainant seeks a remedy in equity against the...
50 U.S. 560 (1850) 9 How. 560 THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFFS, v. PETER MARIGOLD. Supreme Court of United States. *562 The case was argued by Mr. Johnson (Attorney-General), for the United States, and Mr. Seward, for the defendant. *565 Mr. Justice DANIEL delivered the opinion of the court. This is a certificate of division of opinion from the Northern District of New York. The case is clearly and succinctly stated in the following abstract from the record: "At a Circuit Court of the United...
49 U.S. 83 (1850) 8 How. 83 THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. McKEAN BUCHANAN. Supreme Court of United States. *94 It was argued by Mr. Gillet and Mr. Johnson (Attorney-General), for the United States, and Mr. G.M. Wharton and Mr. Dallas, for the defendant in error. *101 Mr. Justice WOODBURY delivered the opinion of the court. This is a writ of error, presenting three distinct grounds of exception to the judgment rendered in the court below. Neither of these is claimed to justify us in...
50 U.S. 487 (1850) 9 How. 487 OBADIAH B. BROWN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. THE UNITED STATES. THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. OBADIAH B. BROWN. Supreme Court of United States. *488 The cause was argued in this court by the Attorney-General (Mr. Johnson), for the United States, and by Mr. Bradley and Mr. Coxe, for Mr. Brown. *489 Mr. Justice DANIEL delivered the opinion of the court. This case is brought before us upon writs of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the...
50 U.S. 407 (1850) 9 How. 407 THOMAS TOWNSEND, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. ROBERT JEMISON, JR. Supreme Court of United States. *409 It was argued by Mr. Key, for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Badger, for the defendant in error. *413 Mr. Justice WAYNE delivered the opinion of the court. This suit has been brought here from the District Court of the United States for the Middle District of Alabama. The defendant in the court below, appellant here, besides other pleas, pleaded that...
50 U.S. 351 9 How. 351 13 L. Ed. 170 THE UNITED STATES v. EPHRAIM BRIGGS. January Term, 1850 THIS case came up from the Circuit Court of the United States for Michigan, upon a certificate of division in opinion between the judges thereof. It was before the court, and reported in 5 Howard, 208, and sent back because the point was not distinctly certified. On the 2d of March, 1831, Congress passed the following act (4 Stat. at Large, 472):—— 'An Act to provide for the punishment of offences...
