Respublica v. Caldwell, (1785)
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Number:
Visitors: 2
Filed: Jan. 01, 1785
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: 1 U.S. 150 (1785) 1 Dall. 150 RESPUBLICA versus CALDWELL. Supreme Court of United States. But M`KEAN, Chief Justice, delivered the opinion of the Court, that the evidence was inadmissible, for two reasons: First, Because it would only amount to matter of opinion, whereas it is on facts the Court must proceed; and the necessary facts are already in proof. Secondly; Because it would be no justification; for, on the same principle that the defendant might carry his wharf 12 feet, he could justify e
Summary: 1 U.S. 150 (1785) 1 Dall. 150 RESPUBLICA versus CALDWELL. Supreme Court of United States. But M`KEAN, Chief Justice, delivered the opinion of the Court, that the evidence was inadmissible, for two reasons: First, Because it would only amount to matter of opinion, whereas it is on facts the Court must proceed; and the necessary facts are already in proof. Secondly; Because it would be no justification; for, on the same principle that the defendant might carry his wharf 12 feet, he could justify ex..
More
1 U.S. 150 (1785)
1 Dall. 150
RESPUBLICA
versus
CALDWELL.
Supreme Court of United States.
But M`KEAN, Chief Justice, delivered the opinion of the Court, that the evidence was inadmissible, for two reasons:
First, Because it would only amount to matter of opinion, whereas it is on facts the Court must proceed; and the necessary facts are already in proof. Secondly; Because it would be no justification; for, on the same principle that the defendant might carry his wharf 12 feet, he could justify extending it farther; or any other man might excuse a similar intrusion. Suppose, for instance, a street were 60 feet wide, 12 feet might be taken off it, without doing any material injury to the public property, or creating any great obstruction to passengers; yet, surely this will not justify any man's actually building upon, and assuming the property of the 12 feet that could be thus spared.
Source: CourtListener
