Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Page 72768 of about 727,836 results (2.057 seconds)

1789

Quesnel Vs. Mussy

Court : US Supreme Court

QUESNEL v. MUSSY - 1 U.S. 449 (1789) U.S. Supreme Court QUESNEL v. MUSSY, 1 U.S. 449 (1789) 1 U.S. 449 (Dall.) Quesnel v. Mussy Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1789 The Defendant was brought before the Court on a Habeas Corpus, when the following facts appeared; That this suit Page 1 U.S. 449, 450 had been instituted against him by Mr. Vanuxem, under the authority of a special Letter of Attorney from the Plaintiff, who resided in one of the United States; that the day after judgment had been obtained, another person arrived with a general Power of Attorney from the Plaintiff, and that this person, without consulting Mr. Vanuxem, settled with the Defendant, to whom he gave a general release in the name of his constituent. It appeared, also, that the latter Power of Attorney was only authenticated by proof of the hand writing of the party, and of the subscribing witnesses, before the Mayor of this city. Lewis moved that the Defendant might be discharged by virt...

Tag this Judgment!

1789

Hooton Vs. Will

Court : US Supreme Court

HOOTON v. WILL - 1 U.S. 450 (1789) U.S. Supreme Court HOOTON v. WILL, 1 U.S. 450 (1789) 1 U.S. 450 (Dall.) Hooton v. Will Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1789 DOMESTIC Attachment. This cause being removed by Certiorari from the Common Pleas, now came before the Court on the following Case, stated for their opinion: 'The term of September, in the Common Pleas for the county of Philadelphia, in the year of our Lord 1782, began on the 4th day of September, and on the 16th day of September, in the same year, Judgment was entered in the Court aforesaid, in an action then depending at the suit of the Plaintiff, above named, against John Levinz, which action had been brought to the term of June, in the same year. On the 5th day of the same month of September, a Domestic Attachment issued out of the same Court, at the suit of John M'Farland against the said John Levinz, and was served on the lands of the Defendant on the same day at 11 o'clock in the morning. No audito...

Tag this Judgment!

1789

Primer Vs. Kuhn

Court : US Supreme Court

PRIMER v. KUHN - 1 U.S. 452 (1789) U.S. Supreme Court PRIMER v. KUHN, 1 U.S. 452 (1789) 1 U.S. 452 (Dall.) Primer, Plaintiff in Err. v. Kuhn Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1789 Error from the Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. On the trial of the cause below, (See ant. 226) a bill of exceptions was taken to the opinion of the Court in the following words: 'Trespass sur le Case, in the Common Pleas, Philadelphia County: And now the 6th day of February 1788, upon the trial of this cause, the Council for the Defendant, under the Pleas of Non Assumpsit, payment, and defalcation, and, in order to maintain the same issue, offered to give in evidence a certain bond, or obligation, of the said Ludwig Kuhn (prout obligation) assigned (prout assignment) entered into by the said Plaintiff, before his discharge under the Insolvent Act, and prayed, that the monies thereon Page 1 U.S. 452, 453 due might be defalked against the said Ludwig Kuhn's demand, which it was argu...

Tag this Judgment!

1789

Graeme Vs. Harris

Court : US Supreme Court

GRAEME v. HARRIS - 1 U.S. 456 (1789) U.S. Supreme Court GRAEME v. HARRIS, 1 U.S. 456 (1789) 1 U.S. 456 (Dall.) Graeme et. al. Admors v. Harris Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1789 This Cause came before the Court on a case stated, which was, in substance, as follows: The intestate, John Graeme, in his life time, to wit, in December term 1772, obtained a Judgement against the Defendant, in a plea of debt, in the County Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia. He afterwards died, being resident at the time of his death in Great Britain, of which kingdom he was a subject. Upon his decease, the Plaintiffs obtained Letters of Administration from the Archbishop of York, in the said kingdom, which bore date the 25th of June 1784; but to this action, which was a scire facias to revive the above-mentioned Judgment, the Defendant pleaded, that the Plaintiffs never were Administrators: Issue was thereupon joined; and this question submitted to the opinion of the Court, wheth...

Tag this Judgment!

1789

Bunner Vs. Neil

Court : US Supreme Court

BUNNER v. NEIL - 1 U.S. 457 (1789) U.S. Supreme Court BUNNER v. NEIL, 1 U.S. 457 (1789) 1 U.S. 457 (Dall.) Bunner v. Neil Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1789 This cause was removed by Habeas Corpus from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, and, on the trial, a verdict was found in favor of the Plaintiff, for L4.10.8. which the defendant paid to the Prothonotary, and then moved to stay proceedings, contending, that as the Plaintiff's demand was reduced below L.10. by a direct payment, and not by discount, or set off, the Plaintiff must pay the costs. The Plaintiff, on the other hand, obtained a rule to show cause, why the Defendant should not pay double costs, under the Act of Assembly, which provides, that, if the defendant removes the cause, and a sum under L. [ Footnote 50 ] is found for the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall pay double costs. Page 1 U.S. 457, 458 After argument, by Swift, for the Plaintiff, and Tilghman, for the Defendant, the ...

Tag this Judgment!

1789

Thompson Vs. Musser

Court : US Supreme Court

THOMPSON v. MUSSER - 1 U.S. 458 (1789) U.S. Supreme Court THOMPSON v. MUSSER, 1 U.S. 458 (1789) 1 U.S. 458 (Dall.) Thompson Pls. in Err. v. Musser: Two Actions Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1789 These actions were removed by writs of Error from the Common Pleas of Lancaster County; and, on return of the respective records, the proceedings appeared to have been as follows: I. On the first, or larger, record, it appeared, that a Capias in an action of Debt in the Detinet, issued at the suit of John Musser against John Thompson, for 200,000 weight of tobacco; and the declaration set forth a penal bill, dated the 3rd of January, 1784, by which John Thompson binds himself in the penalty of 200,000 weight of net crop tobacco, of the inspection of Fredericksburgh, or Falmouth, on Rappahannock river, in Virginia, to pay 100,000 weight of tobacco, of the same inspection, to John Musser, or his assigns, as soon as it could be collected of those who are indebted to the said...

Tag this Judgment!

1789

Respublica Vs. Betsey

Court : US Supreme Court

RESPUBLICA v. BETSEY - 1 U.S. 469 (1789) U.S. Supreme Court RESPUBLICA v. BETSEY, 1 U.S. 469 (1789) 1 U.S. 469 (Dall.) Respublica v. Negro Betsey, et al. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1789 This was a Habeas Corpus ad subjiciendum, which had been allowed by Mr. Justice Bryan, and, afterwards, brought by him before the Court. The case was twice argued; first on the 29th of June 1786, by Bradford, on behalf of Samuel Moore, who claimed the negroes as his servants, and by Lewis, in behalf of the negroes; and a second time, in April term 1789. by the same counsel for the claimant, and by Ingersoll and Fisher for the defendants. The Court having held the matter under advisement till the present term, the Judges delivered their opinions separately, in the following order; the Chief Justice stating the circumstances of the case, and the arguments of the Counsel, in the course of his observations. M'Kean, Chief Justice The negro Betsey, for whom the Habeas Corpus issued ...

Tag this Judgment!

1789

Lyle Vs. Foreman

Court : US Supreme Court

LYLE v. FOREMAN - 1 U.S. 480 (1789) U.S. Supreme Court LYLE v. FOREMAN, 1 U.S. 480 (1789) 1 U.S. 480 (Dall.) Lyle, Admor. v. Foreman Court of Common Pleas, of Philadelphia County December Term, 1789 This was a Foreign Attachment, which issued returnable to the present term; and, on arguing a rule to show cause, why the writ should not be quashed, it was proved, that, on the 5th of December, the Defendant was at Lancaster, in his way to Fort Pitt, where he intended to proceed to the Spanish settlement below the Natches, on the Mississippi, but was actually at Fort Pitt on the 2nd of January, 1790. Shippen, President, observed, that while a man remained in the State, though avowing an intention to withdraw from it, he must be considered as an inhabitant, and; therefore, not an object of the Foreign Attachment. If an inhabitant clandestinely withdraws, or secretes himself, to avoid his creditors, he becomes liable to the Domestic Attachment. The having once been an inhabitant w...

Tag this Judgment!

1789

GRAFF Vs. SMiTH'S ADM'RS

Court : US Supreme Court

GRAFF v. SMITH'S ADM'RS - 1 U.S. 481 (1789) U.S. Supreme Court GRAFF v. SMITH'S ADM'RS, 1 U.S. 481 (1789) 1 U.S. 481 (Dall.) Graff v. Smith's Admors. Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County December Term, 1789 This case came before the Court on a rule to show cause, why the Sheriff should not be directed to postpone the sale of lands taken in execution in the hands of the purchasors from John Smith, the eldest son of Robert Smith, the intestate, till all the lands remaining unsold in the hands of the other children of Robert Smith, should be sold by virtue of the execution. After argument, the President stated the circumstances of the case, and delivered the opinion of the Court, in the following manner. Shippen, President: The facts agreed on both sides in this cause, are, that Robert Smith died intestate indebted to several persons, and possessed of a considerable real estate, but not of sufficient personal estate to pay his debts; that his administrators applied to...

Tag this Judgment!

1789

Pringle Vs. Mcclenachan

Court : US Supreme Court

PRINGLE v. MCCLENACHAN - 1 U.S. 486 (1789) U.S. Supreme Court PRINGLE v. MCCLENACHAN, 1 U.S. 486 (1789) 1 U.S. 486 (Dall.) Pringle v. M'Clenachan Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County December Term, 1789 This cause being referred, a report was made in favor of the Plaintiff, to which the following exceptions were filed by the Defendant: 1st. For that the Referees have entirely omitted to charge the Plaintiff John Pringle, with the sum of L.146. specie. for a loss on a Policy of Insurance that he underwrote to the Defendant, Blair M'Clenachan, upon the Brig Nancy, Richey, master, on a voyage from Cadiz to Philadelphia in 1775. 2. For that in the month of December 1776 there was a balance due from John Pringle to Blair M'Clenachan of L.2455. 13. 4. as appears by the account current furnished the Referees; Page 1 U.S. 486, 487 and yet the Referees, by continuing down the subsequent items of account in Continental Money, to August 1780 (when they struck a balance of L....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //