Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Page 72808 of about 728,103 results (2.279 seconds)

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!

1781

Respublica Vs. Weidle

Court : US Supreme Court

RESPUBLICA v. WEIDLE - 2 U.S. 88 (1781) U.S. Supreme Court RESPUBLICA v. WEIDLE, 2 U.S. 88 (1781) 2 U.S. 88 (Dall.) Respublica v. Weidle* Supreme Court of Pennsylvania November Sessions, 1781 This was an indictment for misprision of Treason, in the defendant's speaking the following words 'that he had lived six years in London, and nine years in Ireland; and never lived happier in his life, than he had done under the English government; and that the King of England is our King, and Page 2 U.S. 88, 89 will be yours.' The words proved, by the evidence on the trial, to have been spoken were, that 'Weedle said he had lived six years in England, and nine in Ireland, and that he lived well, and that is was not so as people took it in this country; and he further said, the King would become King, and that the witness thought so too.' There was, however, some attempt to shew that he was intoxicated at the time of speaking the offensive words. The indictment was founded on the 4th ...

Tag this Judgment!

1780

iN RE JAMES' CLAiM

Court : US Supreme Court

IN RE JAMES' CLAIM - 1 U.S. 47 (1780) U.S. Supreme Court IN RE JAMES' CLAIM, 1 U.S. 47 (1780) 1 U.S. 47 (Dall.) JAMES'S CLAIM. April Term 1780 The case was this; John Parrock was attainted of High Treason, and his estate seized and advertised for sale. Abel James filed a claim, according to the act of Assembly, passed the 6th day of March 1778, in order to obtain a decree establishing his right, to what, he alledged, was a vested remainder in him, after the expiration of an estate for life, which, he contended, was all that John Parrock was possessed of in the premisses, and he never had any issue. [ In re James' Claim 1 U.S. 47 (1780) The question depended on the due construction of the following devise. 'I devise the residue of my estate to John Parrock, during the term of his natural life, and if he leaves lawful issue, then I give my real estate unto such issue: But, in case of his dying without issue, or they dying under the age of twenty one years, then I devise all my ...

Tag this Judgment!

1780

Montgomery Vs. Henry

Court : US Supreme Court

MONTGOMERY v. HENRY - 1 U.S. 49 (1780) U.S. Supreme Court MONTGOMERY v. HENRY, 1 U.S. 49 (1780) 1 U.S. 49 (Dall.) Montgomery v. Henry et al High Court of Errors and Appeals, of Pennsylvania April Sessions, 1780 This case, which was an appeal, from a decree in the Admiralty, having been elaborately argued on the 6th of May, the PRESIDENT delivered the opinion of the Court. REED, President: The case upon which we are now to give our judgment, comes before us under the following circumstances: Captain Montgomery was master and commander of the ship, called the General Greene, designed for a voyage to Martinica. While the ship lay in the river, a severe frost happened, which occasioned a great delay, and the owners thought proper to alter their plan. Differences then arose; they dismist Capt. Montgomery, and took the ship from him. Upon this he preferred his libel in the Court of Admiralty, complaining of the injury, as done to him in the port of Philadelphia, and within the jur...

Tag this Judgment!


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