Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Page 72774 of about 727,967 results (2.112 seconds)

1792

Shaw Vs. Wallace

Court : US Supreme Court

SHAW v. WALLACE - 2 U.S. 179 (1792) U.S. Supreme Court SHAW v. WALLACE, 2 U.S. 179 (1792) 2 U.S. 179 (Dall.) Shaw v. Wallace Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1792 This cause was set down for trial; but was afterwards continued by the plaintiff. The defendant's attorney, prayed a rule might be granted for security for costs, the plaintiff Page 2 U.S. 179, 180 residing in New York. Moylan, objected, that the motion came too late, after the cause had been marked for trial. But, By the Court: It is never too late to grant the rule, when it will not delay the trial. Rule granted. ...

Tag this Judgment!

1792

Wood Vs. Roach

Court : US Supreme Court

WOOD v. ROACH - 2 U.S. 180 (1792) U.S. Supreme Court WOOD v. ROACH, 2 U.S. 180 (1792) 2 U.S. 180 (Dall.) Wood v. Roach Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1792 This was a Scieri Facias against the defendant, as garnishee of twenty-one hogsheads of flax-seed, the property of James Elliot. The defence was, that the defendant being a captain of a ship, had received the flax-seed, and signed a bill of lading, engaging to deliver the flax- seed to a consignee in Europe. To prove this Moylan offered a bill of lading not signed, but annexed to an affidavit by Roach, setting forth that it was a copy of one signed, and delivered to the consignee, before the attachment was laid. The evidence was objected to: And by M'Kean, Chief Justice: This is not the best evidence; and, therefore, it cannot be admitted. Bradford, Justice: The paper offered in evidence is not a bill of lading; but it is offered as a copy, and to prove that a bill of lading, of the same tenor and date, w...

Tag this Judgment!

1792

Bloomfield Vs. Budden

Court : US Supreme Court

BLOOMFIELD v. BUDDEN - 2 U.S. 183 (1792) U.S. Supreme Court BLOOMFIELD v. BUDDEN, 2 U.S. 183 (1792) 2 U.S. 183 (Dall.) Bloomfield v. Budden Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1792 Richard Budden devises, after payment of debts, a house to his wife for life, remainder to James and Susanna, his children. The widow and children afterwards mortgage this property, to the plaintiff, for the proper debt of James. The plaintiff sues out a scieri facias, and, after sale of the house, and satisfaction of the mortgage monies, the surplus was brought into Court, to be disposed of as the Court should direct. Under these circumstances, M. Levy contended, that this debt, which James owed to the widow, was to be considered as a lien on the house, and that the surplus should be paid to her absolutely. Doug. 133. 2 Bl. Rep. 949. 2 Ves. 622. Brown. Ch. 421. Equity favors liens. A factor has a lien for his general balance. 4 Burr. 2220. The Court ordered that the money be paid the w...

Tag this Judgment!

1792

Johns Vs. Nichols

Court : US Supreme Court

JOHNS v. NICHOLS - 2 U.S. 184 (1792) U.S. Supreme Court JOHNS v. NICHOLS, 2 U.S. 184 (1792) 2 U.S. 184 (Dall.) Johns v. Nichols Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1792 This was a feigned issue; upon which this single question was submitted for the opinion of the Court, whether the Page 2 U.S. 184, 185 power of appointing the Clerk of the Mayor's Court of Philadelphia, was vested in the Governor, or the Corporation of the city? The case was argued at the last Term by the Attorney General for the State, and by E. Tilghman, for the Corporation. The Attorney General contended, that the Clerk of the Mayor's Court is an officer of the Commonwealth. In the act of incorporation (2 vol. Dall. Edit. p. 660, sect. 19.) the powers of the Aldermen are defined; but nothing is said of the appointment of the Clerk. The fines imposed for offences against the Commonwealth are to be paid into the State Treasury; and the Clerk is the officer, who not only keeps the records of the ...

Tag this Judgment!

1792

GRUBB'S EX'RS Vs. GRUBB'S EX'RS

Court : US Supreme Court

GRUBB'S EX'RS v. GRUBB'S EX'RS - 2 U.S. 191 (1792) U.S. Supreme Court GRUBB'S EX'RS v. GRUBB'S EX'RS, 2 U.S. 191 (1792) 2 U.S. 191 (Dall.) Grubb's Executors v. Grubb's Executors Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1792 This cause being referred in the Common Pleas, the referrees made report into office; and afterwards the plaintiff removed the cause by certiorari into this Court. Page 2 U.S. 191, 192 But Ingersoll, on behalf of the defendant, now moved for a Procedendo; alledging that in a case of Pigot v. Young, it had been decided, that a cause could not be removed after the arbitrators, or referees, had entered on the business submitted, or referred, to them. And the Court, accordingly, awarded a Procedendo. ...

Tag this Judgment!

1792

Knox Vs. Jones

Court : US Supreme Court

KNOX v. JONES - 2 U.S. 193 (1792) U.S. Supreme Court KNOX v. JONES, 2 U.S. 193 (1792) 2 U.S. 193 (Dall.) Knox et al. v. Jones* Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1792 This was an action on the case for goods sold and delivered; and the only question agitated upon the trial, was whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover interest? It was proved, that at the time of the sale, the defendant was informed, that it was the course of the trade to give six months credit; or, if cash was paid, to discount five per cent; but that punctuality, and not interest, was the object of the plaintiffs. By the Court: The established course of the plaintiffs' trade is proved; and, also, the knowledge of the defendant. Page 2 U.S. 193, 194 It appears, therefore, to be a part of their contract, that interest should commence, at the expiration of the six months credit. Verdict accordingly. Footnotes [ Footnote * ] This case was decided at Philadelphia, Nisi Prius, held in Novem...

Tag this Judgment!

1792

Cupisino Vs. Perez

Court : US Supreme Court

CUPISINO v. PEREZ - 2 U.S. 194 (1792) U.S. Supreme Court CUPISINO v. PEREZ, 2 U.S. 194 (1792) 2 U.S. 194 (Dall.) Cupisino v. Perez Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1792 This was an action brought against the Defendant, owner of the Brig Santissima Trinidad, for money lent to the captain in the Havanna, who gave the plaintiff the following note: 'Received of S. Cupisino two hundred dollars for the victualling and expences of the brigantine, which sum I will pay at first sight, in the name of the owner Don Fos. de Auguire Perez, who is in Philadelphia; which cash I receive, mortgaging the freight, the brigantine and her rigging, as the said Santiago has lent me the above sum, for the advantage of the vessel at Havanna, June 6th, 1788. (Signed) 'Narisco Sanchez y Serma.' On her arrival at Philadelphia, the brig was libelled on this hypothecation (as it was called) in the Admiralty, and after hearing, the libel was dismissed. It appeared, that the captain had goo...

Tag this Judgment!

1792

Lawson Vs. Morrison

Court : US Supreme Court

LAWSON v. MORRISON - 2 U.S. 286 (1792) U.S. Supreme Court LAWSON v. MORRISON, 2 U.S. 286 (1792) 2 U.S. 286 (Dall.) Lawson, Appellant v. Morrison, et. al. Appellees High Court of Errors and Appeals of Pennsylvania July Session, 1792 Appeal from a sentence of the Register of Wills &c.; and two justices of the Common Pleas for the County of Cumberland. The case had been argued in July 1789, (before the present organization of the Judiciary Department under the existing Constitution) and afterwards in October 1792, by Bradford and Ingersoll, for the appellant, and by Lewis for the appellees. The facts, on which the appeal arose, were as follow: A written paper, purporting to be the Will of Janet Morrison, dated the 19th of October 1775, was exhibited for probate to the Register of Wills, &c.; on the 19th of October 1786. A caveat was entered by the appellant against admitting it to be proved, alledging that the testatrix had made a latter Will, which expressly revoked th...

Tag this Judgment!

1792

Collet Vs. Collet

Court : US Supreme Court

COLLET v. COLLET - 2 U.S. 294 (1792) U.S. Supreme Court COLLET v. COLLET, 2 U.S. 294 (1792) 2 U.S. 294 (F.Cas.) 2 Dall. 294 Collet v. Collet Circuit Court, Pennsylvania District April Term, 1792 This was a bill in Equity, which stated the complainant to be a subject of his Britannic Majesty, and the Respondent to be a citizen of Pennsylvania. The Respondent in his plea averred, that the complainant was a citizen of Pennsylvania; and this plea, if true, deprived the Court of its jurisdiction, as the Federal Courts cannot (unless in some particularly specified cases) take cognizance of controversies between citizens of the same State. The question was argued on the 21st of April by Randolph and Serjeant, in support of the bill, and by M. Levy in support of the exception to the jurisdiction. It then appeared, that the complainant was born in the Isle of Man, part of the British dominions; but it was certified, by the Mayor of Philadelphia, that on the 30th of April 1790, he had ...

Tag this Judgment!

1792

Oswald Vs. State of New York

Court : US Supreme Court

OSWALD v. STATE OF NEW YORK - 2 U.S. 401 (1792) U.S. Supreme Court OSWALD v. STATE OF NEW YORK, 2 U.S. 401 (1792) 2 U.S. 401 (Dall.) Oswald, Administrator v. the State of New York February Term, 1792 Summons. In this case the Marshall had returned the writ served; and now Sergeant moved for a distringas, to compel an appearance on the part of the State. While, however, the court held the motion under advisement, it was voluntarily withdrawn, and the suit discontinued.* Footnotes [ Footnote * ] But see the same suit post, and Grayfen versus Virginia.[ Oswald v. State of New York Footnote 2 U.S. 401 (1792) ] ...

Tag this Judgment!


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