66 U.S. 386 (_) 1 Black 386 WOODS vs. LAWRENCE COUNTY. Supreme Court of United States. *391 Mr. Smith, of Pennsylvania, for the plaintiff. Mr. Taylor and Mr. McCoomb, of Pennsylvania, for defendant. *404 Mr. Justice WAYNE. This is an action of debt brought upon coupons for interest attached to bonds, which had been passed by the county of Lawrence to the Northwestern Railroad Company, in payment of its subscription for two hundred thousand dollars to the capital stock of that company. It is...
66 U.S. 501 (_) 1 Black 501 WHITE'S ADMINISTRATOR vs. THE UNITED STATES. Supreme Court of United States. Mr. Black, of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Green, of Missouri, for the relator. Mr. Cushing, of Massachusetts, for White. Mr. Bates, Attorney General, for the United States. Mr. Justice GRIER. The motion for a mandamus in this *502 case is founded on a mistaken apprehension of the judgment of this court as it is reported in 23 Howard, 249. Ortega had married the daughter of Miranda; they lived as...
66 U.S. 39 (_) 1 Black 39 WEIGHTMAN vs. THE CORPORATION OF WASHINGTON. Supreme Court of United States. *41 Mr. Bradley and Mr. Carlisle, of Washington city, for plaintiff in error. *45 Mr. Justice CLIFFORD. This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Columbia. According to the transcript, the action was trespass on the case, and was brought by the plaintiff, to recover damages against the corporation, defendants, on account of certain personal injuries...
66 U.S. 450 (_) 1 Black 450 WASHINGTON AND TURNER vs. OGDEN. Supreme Court of United States. *452 Mr. Arrington, of Illinois, for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Fuller, of Illinois, and Mr. Carlisle, of Washington city, for defendants in error. *455 Mr. Justice GRIER. The very numerous exceptions to the sufficiency of the pleadings, and the correctness of the instructions given by the court, all depend on the construction given to the covenants of the agreement, which is the foundation of the suit....
66 U.S. 54 (_) 1 Black 54 WABASH AND ERIE CANAL vs. BEERS. Supreme Court of United States. Mr. Gillet, for the appellees. Mr. Usher, for the appellees, opposed the motion. *55 Mr. Chief Justice TANEY. This decree is final. It is decisive of the case made upon the record. It is positive, and not alternative. It leaves no question of right between the parties open for future adjudication. The decree orders the money to be brought into court within a limited time, and the court warns the...
66 U.S. 472 (_) 1 Black 472 VERDEN vs. COLEMAN. Supreme Court of United States. *473 Mr. Gillet, of Washington city, and Mr. Mace, of Indiana, for plaintiff in error. Mr. Baird, of Indiana, for defendant in error. Mr. Justice GRIER. Does this case come within the 25th section of the judiciary act The bill filed in the State court is for the foreclosure of a mortgage. The defence set up by the mortgagor was, that the consideration of the note which the mortgage secured was the purchase money of...
66 U.S. 427 (_) 1 Black 427 VANCE vs. CAMPBELL ET AL. Supreme Court of United States. Messrs. Lee and Fisher, of Ohio, for plaintiff in error. *428 Mr. Lincoln, of Ohio, for defendant in error. Mr. Justice NELSON. This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States of the southern district of Ohio. The suit was brought by Vance against the defendants in the court below, for the infringement of a patent for certain improvements in cooking stoves. The patentee recites in his...
66 U.S. 541 (_) 1 Black 541 UNITED STATES vs. VALLEJO. Supreme Court of United States. *545 Mr. Black, of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Green, of Missouri, for the United States. Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, and Mr. McCalla, of Kentucky. *549 Mr. Justice NELSON. This is an appeal from a decree of the District Court of the United States for the northern district of California. The claim of Vallejo and his assigns covers a tract of land known by the name of Suscol, in the county of Solano,...
66 U.S. 298 (_) 1 Black 298 THE UNITED STATES vs. ROBERT B. NELEIGH. Supreme Court of United States. *299 Mr. Shunk, of Pennsylvania, for the United States. Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, and Mr. Gillet, of Washington, for the appellee. Mr. Black, of Pennsylvania. *305 Mr. Justice GRIER. Neleigh filed his claim before the board of Land Commissioners on the 3d of September, 1852. It was for six leagues of land in Mariposa county, being part of eleven leagues said to have been granted to Lieut....
66 U.S. 227 (_) 1 Black 227 UNITED STATES vs. KNIGHT'S ADM'R. Supreme Court of United States. *233 Mr. Shunk, of Pennsylvania, for the United States. Mr. Stanton, of Washington city, and Mr. Sunderland, of California, for the appellee. *241 Mr. Justice CLIFFORD. This was a petition for the confirmation of a land claim under the act of the third of March, 1851, and the case comes before the court on appeal from a decree of the District Court of the United States for the northern district of...
66 U.S. 488 (_) 1 Black 488 UNITED STATES vs. KNIGHT'S ADMINISTRATOR. Supreme Court of United States. *489 Mr. Black, for the United States. Mr. Johnson maintained the propriety and regularity of the motion. Mr. Chief Justice TANEY. The court cannot receive the depositions, nor hear an argument upon the motion. The point has already been decided at the present term in the case of The United States vs. Hensley, and a similar motion overruled. In the case of Southard et al. vs. Russell, (12 How.,...
66 U.S. 267 1 Black 267 17 L. Ed. 142 UNITED STATES v. JOHN WILSON. December Term, 1861 Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the northern district of California. This was a claim for a tract of land lying near to the mission of San Luis Obispo, containing 300,000 square varas, or about fifty acres of land, and called La Huerta de Romualdo . The claim was based on a grant to one Romualdo, an Indian, by Pio Pico, dated on the 10th of July, 1846. But there was evidence to show...
66 U.S. 484 (_) 1 Black 484 UNITED STATES vs. JACKALOW. Supreme Court of United States. *485 Mr. Bates, Attorney General, and Mr. Keasley, of New Jersey, for the United States. No counsel appeared for Jackalow. Mr. Justice NELSON. This case comes before us on a division of opinion of the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of New Jersey. The first count in the indictment charges that the prisoner, with force and arms, on the high seas, in waters within the...
66 U.S. 55 (_) 1 Black 55 UNITED STATES vs. BABBIT. Supreme Court of United States. *56 The Attorney General (Mr. Bates) for the United States. Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, and r. Gillet, of Washington city, for defendant. Mr. Justice SWAYNE. This was an action in the court below, upon the official bond of the defendant, Babbit, as register of the land office at Kanesville, in the State of Iowa. The bond bears date on the 9th day of May, 1853. The petition, we are advised, is according to...
66 U.S. 494 1 Black 494 17 L. Ed. 155 THE WATER WITCH— Clifton, Claimant; Sheldon, Libellant . December Term, 1861 Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district of New York. Sheldon filed his libel in the District Court of the United States for the southern district of New York against the brig Water Witch. The libellant claimed to be the consignee of two hundred and two bales of cotton, which had been shipped on board of that vessel at Lavacca, Texas, for...
66 U.S. 283 1 Black 283 17 L. Ed. 143 THE UNITED STATES v. VALLEJO. December Term, 1861 Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the district of California. This was a claim for a tract of land in Sonoma county, California, two leagues and a half in length by a quarter of a league in width, and called Agua Caliente . M. G. Vallejo filed his petition before the Land Commission claiming the tract above described under a deed from Lazaro Pina, to whom it had been granted in 1840 by...
66 U.S. 522 (_) 1 Black 522 THE STEAMER ST. LAWRENCE Meyer et al., Claimants; Tupper et al., Libellants. Supreme Court of United States. *524 Mr. Lane, of New York, for the claimants. Mr. Williams, of New York, for the libellants. *525 Mr. Chief Justice TANEY. This is an appeal from the decree of the Circuit Court for the southern district of New York, sitting as a court of admiralty. The case as presented by the transcript is this: The appellees in the summer and fall of 1855 were requested...
66 U.S. 62 (_) 1 Black 62 THE STEAMER NEW PHILADELPHIA Camden & Amboy Co., Claimants; Brady, Libellant. Supreme Court of United States. *65 Mr. Murray, for libellant. Mr. Burrell, for libellant. *66 Mr. Justice WAYNE. This is an appeal in admiralty from the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district of New York. It has been argued with minuteness and ability by the proctors of the parties, as well in respect to the allegations of the libel and answer, as to the incidents of...
67 U.S. 581 (_) 2 Black 581 THE SHIP POTOMAC Simpson, Claimant; Baker, Libellant. Supreme Court of United States. *583 Mr. Gillet, of Washington City, for Appellant. Mr. Benedict, of New York, contra. Mr. Justice GRIER. When the counsel prepared their briefs of argument in this case, they could not have seen the report of the case of "the Steamer St. Lawrence," (1 Black, 525), or they would have considered it labor lost to argue the same question of jurisdiction on the very same facts again...
66 U.S. 414 1 Black 414 17 L. Ed. 217 THE SHIP MARCELLUS— Baxter, Claimant; Camp, Libellant . December Term, 1861 Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts. In admiralty. Hugh N. Camp, Edward W. Brunsen, and Charles Sherry, partners, doing business in New York city, under the firm of Camp, Brunsen & Sherry, filed their libel in the District Court for Massachusetts, against the ship Marcellus, of Boston, her tackle, apparel and furniture, alleging that...
