65 U.S. 303 24 How. 303 16 L. Ed. 688 WILLIAM WIGGINS, JAMES M. JONES, AND JOHN B. WELLER, COMPLAINANTS, v. JOHN B. GRAY AND KNOWLES TAYLOR. December Term, 1860 THIS case came up on a certificate of a division of opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the northern district of California. The question certified is stated in the opinion of the court. The case was argued by Mr. Bayard , upon a brief filed by himself and Mr. Collier , for the complainants, and by...
65 U.S. 242 24 How. 242 16 L. Ed. 672 WILLIAM S. McEWEN AND HENRY H. WILEY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. JOHN DEN, LESSEE OF CHARLES BULKLEY AND STUART BROWN. December Term, 1860 THIS case was brought up by writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the eastern district of Tennessee. It was an ejectment brought under the circumstances stated in the opinion of the court, and was argued by Mr. Maynard and Mr. Heiskell for the plaintiffs in error, and Mr. Nelson for the defendants....
65 U.S. 544 (_) 24 How. 544 JOHN J. WHEELER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. ANDREW J. NESBITT, JEROME CARDING, FREDERICK M. BINKLEY, JAMES D. TRIMBLE, WILSON J. MATHIS, AND ROBERT McNEELY. Supreme Court of United States. *546 It was submitted on printed argument by Mr. Underwood for the plaintiff in error, and argued by Mr. Phillips for the defendants. Mr. Justice CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court. This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the middle district of...
65 U.S. 333 (_) 24 How. 333 THE WASHINGTON, ALEXANDRIA, AND GEORGETOWN STEAM-PACKET COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. FREDERIC E. SICKLES AND TRUEMAN COOK. THE WASHINGTON, ALEXANDRIA, AND GEORGETOWN STEAM-PACKET COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. FREDERIC E. SICKLES AND TRUEMAN COOK. Supreme Court of United States. *335 The case was argued by Mr. Badger and Mr. Carlisle for the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. Bradley and Mr. Stone for the defendants. *340 Mr. Justice CAMPBELL delivered the opinion...
65 U.S. 208 (_) 24 How. 208 SUSAN VIGEL, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. HENRY NAYLOR, ADMINISTRATOR OF GEORGE NAYLOR, DECEASED. Supreme Court of United States. *209 It was argued by Mr. Blair for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. Bradley for the defendant. Mr. Justice CATRON delivered the opinion of the court. Susan Vigel sued Henry Naylor, administrator of George Naylor, by a petition for freedom in the Circuit Court of this District. He pleaded that she was his slave. On the trial of this issue, she...
66 U.S. 35 1 Black 35 17 L. Ed. 29 UNITED STATES v. HENSLEY. December Term, 1861 This case came up on appeal from the decree of the District Court of the United States for the northern district of California, being a private land claim, prosecuted by the appellee under the act of Congress passed March 3, 1851. In his petition to the Board of Land Commissioners the appellee claimed confirmation of his title to a tract of land in Butte county, known by the name of Aguas Nieves, and containing six...
66 U.S. 339 1 Black 339 17 L. Ed. 40 UNITED STATES v. COVILLAND ET AL. December Term, 1861 Charles Covilland, Jos e Manuel Ramirez, William H. Sampson, administrator of John Sampson, Charles B. Sampson, Robert B. Buchanan, and Gabriel N. Suezy, presented their petition to the Board of Land Commissioners, at San Francisco, on the 31st of May, 1852, claiming to be confirmed in their title to two tracts of land lying on the Yuba and the Feather rivers. The title set forth in the petition was...
65 U.S. 131 (_) 24 How. 131 THE UNITED STATES, APPELLANTS, v. CLAUDE CHANA, WILLIAM MARTIN, THOMAS P TURNER, AND ALBERT ROWE. Supreme Court of United States. It was submitted on printed argument by Mr. Black (Attorney General) for the United States, no counsel appearing for the appellees. Mr. Justice CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the court. The appellees presented their claim before the board of commissioners for the settlement of land claims in California for a tract of land, consisting of...
65 U.S. 346 (_) 24 How. 346 THE UNITED STATES, APPELLANTS, v. JOSE CASTRO AND OTHERS Supreme Court of United States. It was argued by Mr. Stanton (Attorney General) for the United States, and Mr. Edward Swann for the appellees. Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court. The appellees claim title to eleven leagues of land in California under a Mexican grant. In March, 1853, they filed a petition before the board of land commissioners, stating that the land in question was, on...
65 U.S. 307 (_) 24 How. 307 THE UNION STEAMSHIP COMPANY OF PHILADELPHIA, CLAIMANTS AND OWNERS OF THE STEAMSHIP PENNSYLVANIA, HER TACKLE, &c., APPELLANTS, v. THE NEW YORK AND VIRGINIA STEAMSHIP COMPANY. Supreme Court of United States. *308 Upon an appeal to this court it was submitted on printed argument by Mr. Kane for the appellants, and argued by Mr. Watson for the appellees. Mr. Justice CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court. This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the...
65 U.S. 426 (_) 24 How. 426 ALFRED TRACY, SURVIVING PARTNER OF EDWARD TRACY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. WILLIAM HOLCOMBE. Supreme Court of United States. It was submitted on the record by Mr. Phillips for the plaintiff in error. *427 Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court. This case has been brought here by a writ of error directed to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota. But upon looking into the transcript, it appears that the judgment which it is proposed to revise is...
65 U.S. 233 (_) 24 How. 233 WILLIAM THOMPSON AND JOHN PICKELL, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. LEWIS ROBERTS, GIDEON R. BURBANK, AND ADDISON ROBERTS. Supreme Court of United States. *236 It was argued by Mr. Mayer, upon a brief filed by himself and Mr. Washington Yellott, for the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. Alexander for the defendants. *239 Mr. Justice GRIER delivered the opinion of the court. The defendants in error were plaintiffs below, and brought this suit as endorsers of two notes given by...
65 U.S. 376 (_) 24 How. 376 THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF KNOX COUNTY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. WILLIAM H. ASPINWALL, JOSEPH W. ALSOP, HENRY CHANCEY, CHARLES GOULD, AND SAMUEL L.M. BARLOW. Supreme Court of United States. It was argued by Mr. Porter for the plaintiffs in error, and Mr. Vinton upon a brief filed by himself, and also one by Mr Judah, for the defendants. *383 Mr. Justice GRIER delivered the opinion of the court. The plaintiffs in error were defendants in a suit by Aspinwall and...
65 U.S. 357 (_) 24 How. 357 CHARLES TATE AND OTHERS, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. JOHN G. CARNEY AND OTHERS. Supreme Court of United States. *358 It was submitted on a printed argument by Mr. Benjamin for the plaintiffs in error, and argued by Mr. Taylor for the defendants. Mr. Justice CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the court. This cause comes before this court by a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana, under the 25th section of the Judiciary act of September, 1789. The...
65 U.S. 427 (_) 24 How. 427 JAMES H. SUYDAM, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. WILLIAM H. WILLIAMSON. Supreme Court of United States. It was submitted on printed argument by Mr. Ellingwood for the plaintiff in error, and argued by Mr. David Dudley Field for the defendant. *428 Mr. Justice CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the court. This was an action of ejectment in the Circuit Court for certain lots of land in the city of New York, by the defendants in error, against the plaintiff in error. The...
66 U.S. 101 1 Black 101 17 L. Ed. 33 STILES v. DAVIS & BARTON. December Term, 1861 Writ of error to the District Court of the United States for the northern district of Illinois. Solomon Davis and Joseph Barton brought trover in the Circuit Court of the United States for the northern district of Illinois, against Edmund G. Stiles, for twelve boxes, one trunk, and one bale containing dry goods, of the value of four thousand dollars. On the trial it was proved that Stiles, who was a common...
65 U.S. 207 (_) 24 How. 207 GEORGE R. SAMPSON AND LEWIS W. TAPPAN, MERCHANTS DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAMES AND FIRM OF SAMPSON & TAPPAN, CLAIMANTS OF THE SHIP SARAH, HER TACKLE, APPAREL, AND FURNITURE, APPELLANTS, v. SAMUEL WELSH, JOHN WELSH, AND WILLIAM WELSH, TRADING AS S. & W. WELSH. Supreme Court of United States. It was a case of libel under the circumstances which are stated in the opinion of the court, and was submitted on printed arguments by Mr. Wharton and Mr. Kane for the appellants,...
65 U.S. 188 (_) 24 How. 188 THOMAS RICHARDSON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. THE CITY OF BOSTON. Supreme Court of United States. *191 The case was argued in this court by Mr. Badger and Mr. Carlisle for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. Cushing and Mr. Chandler for the defendant. Mr. Justice GRIER delivered the opinion of the court. This is the third time in which this claim to have damages from the city of Boston, for erecting drains and sewers on their own land for the preservation of the health of...
65 U.S. 420 (_) 24 How. 420 WILLIAM C. REDDALL, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. WILLIAM H. BRYAN, ALFRED L. RIVES, WILLIAM H. PILES, JOHN CAMERON, JAMES PAINE, CHARLES HUTCHINSON, AND JOHN MOORE. Supreme Court of United States. *421 It was argued by Mr. John S. Tyson and Mr. Mayer for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Stanton (Attorney General) for the defendants. Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a writ of error to revise the decree of the Court of Appeals of Maryland,...
65 U.S. 300 (_) 24 How. 300 THE RECTOR, CHURCH WARDENS, AND VESTRYMEN, OF CHRIST CHURCH, IN THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, IN TRUST FOR CHRIST CHURCH HOSPITAL, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA. Supreme Court of United States. *301 It was argued by Mr. McCall and Mr. Reverdy Johnson for the plaintiffs in error, and submitted on a printed argument by Mr. King for the defendants. Mr. Justice CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the court This cause comes before this court upon a writ of...
