88 U.S. 158 (_) 21 Wall. 158 INSURANCE COMPANY v. SEA. Supreme Court of United States. *160 Mr. W.H. Swift, for the plaintiff in error; Messrs. H.G. Spafford, S.V. Niles, and E. Totten, contra. The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court. Much protracted litigation attended the settlement of mere questions of practice under the act passed in 1824, [*] authorizing the trial of issues of fact by the courts of the United States, with the consent of parties, in Louisiana. To avoid a like...
90 U.S. 486 (_) 23 Wall. 486 GREEN v. GREEN. Supreme Court of United States. *488 Messrs. L.S. Wells and W.B. Webb, for the plaintiff in error; Mr. W.S. Cox, contra. Mr. Justice HUNT delivered the opinion of the court. In Shelley's case, [*] the rule is thus laid down: "that when the ancestor, by any gift or conveyance, taketh an estate of freehold, and in the same gift or conveyance an estate is limited either mediately or immediately to his heirs in fee or in tail, the heirs are words of...
90 U.S. 466 (_) 23 Wall. 466 LEWIS v. COCKS. Supreme Court of United States. *468 Mr. P. Phillips, for the appellant. Mr. Conway Robinson, contra. *469 Mr. Justice SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court. The question of the validity of the Provisional Court is not an open one. We have held it valid upon more than one occasion when the question has been before us. [*] The fraud charged upon Izard is expressly denied by his answer and is not sustained by the evidence. There is a decided...
88 U.S. 398 (_) 21 Wall. 398 MICHAELS ET AL. v. POST, ASSIGNEE. Supreme Court of United States. *408 Mr. John Norton Pomeroy, for the appellants. *412 *413 Mr. Justice CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court. Debtors, owing debts to the amount of $300, who have committed any one of the acts of bankruptcy enumerated in the thirty-ninth section of the original Bankrupt Act, may be adjudged bankrupts on the petition of one or more of their creditors, the aggregate of whose debts provable under...
88 U.S. 317 (_) 21 Wall. 317 CHAMBERS COUNTY v. CLEWS. Supreme Court of United States. *321 Mr. R.T. Merrick, for the plaintiff in error; Mr. S.F. Rice, contra. Mr. Justice HUNT delivered the opinion of the court. The special plea was demurred to specially, and the demurrer was sustained by the court. We have held many times, in relation to bonds of this character, that where the persons appointed by law to certify that the preliminary requisites have been complied with, do so certify, that...
90 U.S. 20 (_) 23 Wall. 20 THE GREAT REPUBLIC. Supreme Court of United States. *26 Messrs. William Tod Otto and J.A. Grow, for the appellants. Messrs. Durant and Hornor, contra. *28 Mr. Justice DAVIS delivered the opinion of the court. There is some excuse, even for a party in fault, when two boats collide in tempestuous or foggy weather, or on a dark night, but there are no exculpatory circumstances attending this disaster. It happened before dark, in the middle of the Mississippi, and when...
88 U.S. 255 (_) 21 Wall. 255 RAILROAD COMPANY v. SMITH ET AL. Supreme Court of United States. *260 Mr. W.M. Merrick, for the plaintiff in error; Mr. J.H.B. Latrobe, contra. Mr. Justice FIELD, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court, as follows: The interrogatories to the witness Meador, the answers to which were excluded, inquired whether the structure and arrangements of the bridge caused any injury or damage, hindrance or delay, to the company in the running of its railroad,...
88 U.S. 185 (_) 21 Wall. 185 ADAMS v. ADAMS. Supreme Court of United States. *190 Messrs. T.J.D. Fuller and E. Lander, for the complainant; Messrs. W.W. Boyce and John Selden, contra. Mr. Justice HUNT delivered the opinion of the court. The first question in this case is whether there was a delivery of the deed of August 13th, 1861. If not a formal ceremonious delivery, was there a transaction which, between such parties and for such purposes as exist in the present case, the law deems to be...
88 U.S. 105 (_) 21 Wall. 105 COOPER & Co. v. COATES & Co. Supreme Court of United States. *108 Mr. S.W. Packard, for the plaintiffs in error. Mr. O.K.A. Hutchinson, contra. *110 Mr. Justice HUNT delivered the opinion of the court. The objections in this case are, none of them, serious in their character. By the rules of common law it is certainly necessary that parties who sue as co-plaintiffs, alleging themselves to be partners, shall make proof of that allegation. The same is true of persons...
88 U.S. 1 (_) 21 Wall. 1 THE LADY PIKE. Supreme Court of United States. *4 Messrs. J.M. Carlisle and J.D. McPherson, for the appellants. Mr. T.D. Lincoln, contra. *8 Mr. Justice CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court. Appeals in admiralty, it may be admitted, are not favored where it appears that the subordinate courts have both concurred in the same view of the merits of the controversy; but it is not accurate to say that the Supreme Court will not reverse such a decree in a clear case....
88 U.S. 230 (_) 21 Wall. 230 THE MOHLER. Supreme Court of United States. *232 Mr. J.W. Cary, for the appellants. Mr. N.J. Emmons, contra. *233 Mr. Justice DAVIS delivered the opinion of the court. It is insisted that the loss occurred through a peril of navigation, which was one of the exceptions contained in the bill of lading, and that, therefore, the carrier was excused from a delivery of the wheat. The burden of proof lies on the carrier, and nothing short of clear proof, leaving no...
154 U.S. 608 14 S. Ct. 1207 22 L. Ed. 409 NORTHWESTERN UNION PACKET CO. v. EUPHRALIA F. VILES. No. 70. December 7, 1874. Mr. Justice STRONG delivered the opinion of the court. 1 The errors assigned in this case are the same as those which were considered in the case of these plaintiffs against Clough and wife, just decided ( 20 Wall. 528 ), except that some assigned in that case have not been assigned in this. The rejection of Turner's deposition and the admission of the captain's declarations...
87 U.S. 528 (_) 20 Wall. 528 PACKET COMPANY v. CLOUGH. Supreme Court of United States. *532 Mr. J.W. Cary, for the plaintiff in error. Messrs. W.P. Bartlett and M.H. Carpenter, contra. *537 Mr. Justice STRONG delivered the opinion of the court. In considering the first assignment of error that is to say, the question whether on the trial the deposition of Mrs. Clough was rightly admitted in support of her claim, it is unnecessary to inquire whose will be the damages, if any, which may be...
87 U.S. 653 (_) 20 Wall. 653 PARCELS v. JOHNSON. Supreme Court of United States. *654 Mr. B.G. Barrow (with whom was Mr. M.H. Carpenter), for the plaintiff in error; Mr. J.F. Benjamin, contra. The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court. This writ of error is dismissed, upon the authority of Moore v. Robbins, [*] St. Clair County v. Lovingston, [ ] Tracy v. Holcombe, [ ] Pepper v. Dunlap, [ยง] Brown v. Union Bank. [ ] A writ of error can only issue from this court to the highest court...
88 U.S. 98 22 L. Ed. 479 21 Wall. 98 DOUGLASS v. DOUGLASS, ADMINISTRATOR. October Term, 1874 ERROR to the Supreme Court for the District of Columbia; the case being thus: By an act of the Assembly of Maryland, in force in the District of Columbia, 1 provision is made that, upon motion of the defendant in replevin in certain specified cases, the court may order a return of the goods taken in such replevin, to the defendant. In such cases when a return is awarded, it is 'upon the said defendant...
88 U.S. 41 (_) 21 Wall. 41 VANNEVAR v. BRYANT. Supreme Court of United States. *42 Mr. R.M. Morse, Jr., for the plaintiff in error; Mr. C.R. Train, contra. *43 The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court. In the case of the Sewing Machine Companies, [*] it was held that an action upon a contract by a plaintiff, who was a citizen of the State in which the suit was brought, against two defendants, who were citizens of other States, and a third who was a citizen of the same State as the...
88 U.S. 532 (_) 21 Wall. 532 EDWARDS v. ELLIOTT ET AL. Supreme Court of United States. Mr. D. McMahon, for the plaintiff in error. Mr. A.Q. Keasbey, contra. *549 Mr. Justice CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court. Nothing appears in the record to warrant the conclusion that any question re-examinable here was presented in the court of original jurisdiction, whether the proposition is tested by the declaration, the pleas filed by the defendant, the special verdict, or by the judgment, as...
90 U.S. 471 (_) 23 Wall. 471 GRAND TOWER COMPANY v. PHILLIPS ET AL. Supreme Court of United States. *477 Messrs. T.G. Allen and W.M. Evarts, for the company, plaintiff in error; Mr. H.S. Green, contra. Mr. Justice BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court. The court below was of the opinion that the plaintiffs were entitled to the actual damages sustained by them, by the non-delivery of the quotas of coal for October and November, 1870. *478 The question whether this view was right or not...
90 U.S. 46 (_) 23 Wall. 46 COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR v. LOVINGSTON. Supreme Court of United States. *52 Mr. Gustavus Koerner, for the plaintiff in error. Mr. W.H. Underwood, contra. *62 Mr. Justice SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court. We shall assume, for the purposes of this opinion, that all the title which could be passed by Congress and the State was and is vested in the plaintiff in error. It is not denied, on the other hand, that a valid title to the surveys 579 and 786 is vested in those...
88 U.S. 616 (_) 21 Wall. 616 JACKSON v. LUDELING. Supreme Court of United States. *619 Messrs. H.M. Spofford and J.A. Campbell, for the appellants; Mr. W.H. Hunt, contra. Mr. Justice STRONG delivered the opinion of the court, stating the facts of the case as they were assumed by the court on the evidence to be, and stating also the statute of Louisiana above referred to. The sale under consideration was made under an ex parte order, obtained from a judge in chambers on the 23d of December, 1865,...
