Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Page 72781 of about 727,836 results (2.379 seconds)

1782

Wilcox Vs. Henry

Court : US Supreme Court

WILCOX v. HENRY - 1 U.S. 69 (1782) U.S. Supreme Court WILCOX v. HENRY , 1 U.S. 69 (1782) 1 U.S. 69 (Dall.) Wilcox et al. v. Henry Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1782 The case was this: In the close of the year 1777, one Stephen Backhouse arrived at Philadelphia from Liverpool, the troops of the king of Great Britain being at that time in possession of the city. Backhouse brought with him a large and valuable cargo of salt, which he stored in the warehouse of one Pritchard, and after a short stay in Philadelphia, he went to New-York, (then likewise in the possession of the British troops) consigning the salt to Messrs. Jones, Backhouse, and Foulk, of Philadelphia, with directions that they should sell it for him, at the best price they could get, but not under a dollar per bushel. Backhouse, one of the consignees, was no relation whatever of Backhouse the owner. The consignees, accordingly, sold part of the salt to different persons, and on the 17th of June 1778, th...

Tag this Judgment!

1782

The Erstern

Court : US Supreme Court

THE ERSTERN - 2 U.S. 34 (1782) U.S. Supreme Court THE ERSTERN, 2 U.S. 34 (1782) 2 U.S. 34 (Dall.) Darby, et. al. Appellants v. The Brig Erstern, et al. Federal Court of Appeals January Sessions, 1782 This was an appeal from the Admiralty of the State of Massachusetts bay, where the Brig and her cargo had been acquitted. The case was argued on the 28th, 29th and 30th of January; and, on the 5th February 1782, the definitive sentence of the court was pronounced by Paca and Griffin, the presiding commissioners, in the following terms: By the Court. Upon the evidence in this case, we are of opinion, that the Brig, at the time of her capture, was the property of Imperial subjects at Ostend, and that the cargo was British property, unprotected by the capitulation of Dominica. It is objected, 'The Brig is not prize, because neutral property.' Neutral property cannot be captured: For, while the character of neutrality is preserved, such property is the property of a friend, on which th...

Tag this Judgment!

1782

Keane Vs. the Gloucester

Court : US Supreme Court

KEANE v. THE GLOUCESTER - 2 U.S. 36 (1782) U.S. Supreme Court KEANE v. THE GLOUCESTER, 2 U.S. 36 (1782) 2 U.S. 36 (Dall.) Keane, et. al. Libellants and Appellants v. The Brig Gloucester, et al. Appellees Federal Court of Appeals January Sessions, 1782 This was an appeal from the Admiralty of Pennsylvania, and after argument, Paca and Griffin, the presiding Commissioners, delivered the following sentence. Page 2 U.S. 36, 37 By the Court: Two objections are made to the decree below: The first objection is, that a libel does not lie by the crew of a privateer, for their respective proportions of a prize. The second objection is, that the libellants, in this case, are not part of the privateer's crew, nor captors, entitled to a proportion of the prize stated in their libel. With regard to the first objection, we are of opinion, that a libel does lie, and that it is the proper and regular mode of redress: For, the commission of a privateer, according to the form established by C...

Tag this Judgment!

1781

Jacobs Vs. Adams

Court : US Supreme Court

JACOBS v. ADAMS - 1 U.S. 52 (1781) U.S. Supreme Court JACOBS v. ADAMS, 1 U.S. 52 (1781) 1 U.S. 52 (Dall.) The Claim of Jacobs v. Adams Executor Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1781 This case had been argued on the 3rd of July by Lewis for the Claimant, and Bradford for the estate of Adams. The former cited 2 P. Will. 157, 154. Pract. Reg. Barn. 151. 3 Wils. 206. 2 Burr 1083. The latter cited 10 Mod. 277. 6. Mod. 167. And now, the 8th of July, the CHIEF JUSTICE stated the question, and delivered the opinion of the Court, to the following effect: M'KEAN, C. J. The Testator, Flowers, and Jacobs, entered into an agreement for the sale of certain lands; soon after which Flower's died, and Jacobs paid the purchase money to his executors. The will, however, which appointed these executors, was afterwards set aside, having been obtained by undue influence; and Jacobs filed the present claim to recover the money that he had thus improperly paid. The only question submitted t...

Tag this Judgment!

1781

Respublica Vs. Chapman

Court : US Supreme Court

RESPUBLICA v. CHAPMAN - 1 U.S. 53 (1781) U.S. Supreme Court RESPUBLICA v. CHAPMAN, 1 U.S. 53 (1781) 1 U.S. 53 (Dall.) Respublica v. Samuel Chapman Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1781 By a proclamation, dated the 15th June 1778, issued by the Supreme Executive Council, in pursuance of the act of Assembly, passed the 6th of March preceeding, for the attainder of divers traitors, &c.; the prisoner had been required to surrender himself on the 1st of August following, &c.; or to be attainted of high treason agreeably to that act. The time allowed for his surrender being elapsed; the Attorney General filed a suggestion, in the usual form, stating that Samuel Chapman the prisoner was the person required by the proclamation to surrender himself, &c.; that he had not surrendered himself, &c.; that he was therefore attainted; and this he was ready to verify, &c.; The Chief Justice then asked the prisoner, what he had to say, why execution should not be awarded against him. ...

Tag this Judgment!

1781

Respublica Vs. Buffington

Court : US Supreme Court

RESPUBLICA v. BUFFINGTON - 1 U.S. 60 (1781) U.S. Supreme Court RESPUBLICA v. BUFFINGTON, 1 U.S. 60 (1781) 1 U.S. 60 (Dall.) Respublica v. Joshua Buffington Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1781 The Attorney General filed a suggestion, stating, that Joshua Buffington of the county of Chester, yeoman, being a subject, or inhabitant of the State, was by proclamation of the Supreme Executive Council, dated the 2nd of October 1780, required in pursuance of the attainder law, to surrender himself to a justice of the Supreme Court &c.; on or before the 13th of November, 1780, to abide his legal trial for the treasons in the proclamation mentioned, &c.; That the said Joshua Buffington did not surrender himself, &c.; whereby he is attainted, &c.; and he prays an award of execution. [ Respublica v. Buffington 1 U.S. 60 (1781) Joshua Buffington, the prisoner, pleaded, ore tenus, that he is not the Joshua Buffington, in the proclamation named, and was not required to surr...

Tag this Judgment!

1781

Mcveaugh Vs. Goods

Court : US Supreme Court

MCVEAUGH v. GOODS - 1 U.S. 62 (1781) U.S. Supreme Court MCVEAUGH v. GOODS, 1 U.S. 62 (1781) 1 U.S. 62 (Dall.) M'Veaugh v. Goods Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1781 Certain goods of British manufacture being imported into the County of Philadelphia, contrary to the Act of Assembly, passed the 10th of September 1778, they were attached, and this information filed against them. The owners of the goods exhibited a claim, and the merits of the case were brought to trial, at an adjourned court, on the 10th of January 1782, when the following points of evidence were ruled. In support of the information one Scull was called as a witness, who, being examined on the voire dire, said that he assisted in making a seizure of the goods; and, in case they were condemned, but not otherwise, he expected some compensation from M'Veaugh's generosity, although he had received no certain promise of that kind. Lewis, for the Claimants, contended against the admission of Scull's te...

Tag this Judgment!

1781

The Resolution

Court : US Supreme Court

THE RESOLUTION - 2 U.S. 1 (1781) U.S. Supreme Court THE RESOLUTION, 2 U.S. 1 (1781) 2 U.S. 1 (Dall.) Miller et. al. Libellants and Appellants v. The Ship Resolution, and Ingersoll, Claimant and Appellee. Miller et. al. Libellants and Appellants v. The Cargo of the Ship Resolution, and O'Brien Claimant and Appellant. Federal Court of Appeals August Session, 1781 These were Appeals from the Admiralty Court of Pennsylvania, where the Ship had been acquitted and the Cargo condemned. After argument by Wilcox, Lewis and Sergeant, for the Appellants, and Morris and Wilson for the Appellees, the opinion and judgment of the Court ( comprising a statement of all the facts and documents material to the case) were delivered by Cyrus Griffin, the presiding Commissioner, in the following terms: By The Court: We have considered these Appeals, and are now ready to give our judgment. It has been very truly observed, that this Appeal is a case of importance, not only with regard to the s...

Tag this Judgment!

1781

The Resolution

Court : US Supreme Court

THE RESOLUTION - 2 U.S. 19 (1781) U.S. Supreme Court THE RESOLUTION, 2 U.S. 19 (1781) 2 U.S. 19 (Dall.) Miller, Libellant and Appellant v. The Ship Resolution, &c.; Miller, Libellant and Appellant v. The Cargo of the Ship Resolution, &c.; Federal Court of Appeals December Session, 1781 On motion of Wilson, for the Appellants, a rule had been granted in September Session last, to show cause, why there should not be a rehearing in these Appeals: 1st, because the decree had erred in fact; and 2nd. because there had been a discovery of material testimony since it was pronounced: And, it was argued on the 26th December, 1781, by Morris, in support of the rule, and by Serjeant and Wilcocks, in opposition to it. In support of the rule, it was said, that the re-hearing ought to be allowed, on the principle that humanum est errare; and by analogy to the practice of the Court of Chancery, founded on that principle. It is true, that the interest of the community requires, th...

Tag this Judgment!

1781

Respublica Vs. Mccarty

Court : US Supreme Court

RESPUBLICA v. MCCARTY - 2 U.S. 86 (1781) U.S. Supreme Court RESPUBLICA v. MCCARTY, 2 U.S. 86 (1781) 2 U.S. 86 (Dall.) Republica v. M'Carty* Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1781 The defendant was indicted for High-Treason, in levying war, &c.; by joining the armies of the King of Great Britain. On the trial, the Attorney General offered to give the confession of the party in evidence made at the time of his arraignment; but Ingersoll objected, that a confession could only be admitted to be given in evidence by way of corroboration, and that, therefore, an overt act should be first proved. Fost. 10. 240. Bradford, Attorney General, contended, that the confession proved by two witnesses was of itself sufficient; but that, independent of that position, it was not necessary to prove the overt act, before the admission of the confession; and he referred to 5 Bac. Abr. 152. By the Court: No case of this kind has hitherto occurred in this Court. In the case of the Comm...

Tag this Judgment!


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