Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Page 72808 of about 728,175 results (2.518 seconds)

1788

Boinod Vs. Pelosi

Court : US Supreme Court

BOINOD v. PELOSI - 2 U.S. 43 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court BOINOD v. PELOSI, 2 U.S. 43 (1788) 2 U.S. 43 (Dall.) Boinod v. Pelosi Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas May Sittings, 1788 Loyer, an Insolvent Debtor, after his insolvency, deposited with the plaintiff an Atlas, to be sold, and the defendant purchased it at Boinod's store. Discovering that the Atlas had belonged to Loyer, the defendant, who was one of his creditors, refused to pay for it to the plaintiff, insisting that he had a right to set-off his debt against the price. The plaintiff thereupon summoned him before a Justice of the Peace; and, the Justice refusing to admit the set-off, the defendant appealed from that decision. On the trial of the appeal, Heatly contended, for the defendant, that the set-off ought to have been allowed under the insolvent law. 1 Vol. Dall. Edit. p. 164. But even if the Justice was right in his refusal, he said the action could not be maintained in Boinod's name, as the assignees were al...

Tag this Judgment!

1788

Mccurdy Vs. Potts

Court : US Supreme Court

MCCURDY v. POTTS - 2 U.S. 98 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court MCCURDY v. POTTS, 2 U.S. 98 (1788) 2 U.S. 98 McCurdy v. Potts, et al* Supreme Court of Pennsylvania May Sessions, 1788 This was an action of Trespass vi et armis for cutting the plaintiff's trees; to which the defendant pleaded non cul. with leave to justify, &c.; The title to the premises was the subject of controversy; and the Chief Justice delivered the following charge to the Jury. M'Kean, Chief Justice: It is essential to private justice and to public peace and order, that the rules of property, as well as of the other objects of society, should be settled and promulged. Wretched, indeed, is the condition of that people, where the law is either uncertain, or unknown. In the present cause, it appears, that, in the year 1767, Hugh McCurdy, the plaintiff, having obtained a location for 200 acres, desired that a survey might be made by the proper officer; who, accordingly, surveyed the tract in question, amounting...

Tag this Judgment!

1788

Mckimm Vs. Riddle

Court : US Supreme Court

MCKIMM v. RIDDLE - 2 U.S. 100 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court MCKIMM v. RIDDLE, 2 U.S. 100 (1788) 2 U.S. 100 (Dall.) M'Kimm et al. Executors v. Riddle* Supreme Court of Pennsylvania May Sessions, 1788 Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Pleas, non assumpsit, payment , &c.; The plaintiffs, having proved the contract, were called on to produce their Letters Testamentary; but the Counsel insisted, that although they had them, they were not bound to produce them on the present issue. By the Court: It is not necessary, under the pleas in this cause, to produce the Letters Testamentary. If the defendant wished to have them produced, he should have pleaded, and put the matter in issue. Footnotes [ Footnote * ] Ruled at Carlisle Nisi Prius. (a.) 1 Dall. Rep. 261. Chapman versus Steinmetz.[ McKimm v. Riddle Footnote 2 U.S. 100 (1788) ] ...

Tag this Judgment!

1787

Gerard Vs. La Coste

Court : US Supreme Court

GERARD v. LA COSTE - 1 U.S. 194 (1787) U.S. Supreme Court GERARD v. LA COSTE, 1 U.S. 194 (1787) 1 U.S. 194 (Dall.) Gerard v. La Coste et al. Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County June Term, 1787 This case came before the Court on a special verdict, and, after argument, the following judgment was pronounced by the President. Shippen, President. This action is brought against the acceptors of an inland Bill of Exchange, made payable to Bass and Soyer and indorsed by them, after the Acceptance, to the Plaintiff for a valuable consideration. The Bill is payable to Bass and Soyer, without the usual words 'or order' 'or assigns', or any other words of negotiability. The question is, whether this is a Bill of Exchange, which, by the law merchant, is indorsable over, so as to enable the indorsee to maintain an action on it against the acceptors, in his own name. The Court has taken some time to consider the case, not so much from their own doubts, as because it is said emin...

Tag this Judgment!

1787

Phile Vs. the Anna

Court : US Supreme Court

PHILE v. THE ANNA - 1 U.S. 197 (1787) U.S. Supreme Court PHILE v. THE ANNA, 1 U.S. 197 (1787) 1 U.S. 197 (Dall.) Phile qui tam v. The Ship Anna Court of Common Pleas, of Philadelphia County. June Term, 1787 This was an information filed by the Naval Officer of the port of Philadelphia, against the ship Anna, lately arrived from Bristol upon the discovery of Peter Cooper, that forty two hampers of porter, part of her cargo, had been landed, without being first duly entered at the Collector's office, conformably to a law of this State, passed the fifteenth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, which enacts, among other things, 'That every vessel or boat, from which any goods, wares, or merchandize, shall be unladed before due entry thereof, at the office of the Collector, of the port of Philadelphia, and every carriage into which any such goods shall be first put or loaded, after removal from such vessel or boat, together with the horse, horses, or cattle ...

Tag this Judgment!

1787

January Vs. Goodman

Court : US Supreme Court

JANUARY v. GOODMAN - 1 U.S. 208 (1787) U.S. Supreme Court JANUARY v. GOODMAN, 1 U.S. 208 (1787) 1 U.S. 208 (Dall.) January Assignee v. Goodman Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County June Term, 1787 The President, after argument and consideration, delivered the judgment of the Court in this cause, upon a point reserved at the trial. Shippen, President. This is an action on the case, brought upon a writing said to be a promissory note, and declared upon as such, The form of it is not the usual form of a promissory note; it runs thus; 'I promise and oblige myself and my heirs to pay to January and his Assigns,' it concludes with the words 'as witness my hand and seal;' and it is actually sealed. Two witnesses subscribe under the words 'given in presence of us.' On the trial, the subscribing witnesses were not called, nor any evidence given of their death, or absence; but evidence was offered of the hand writing of the Defendant, who subscribed the instrument, which was pe...

Tag this Judgment!

1787

Pollard Vs. Shaffer

Court : US Supreme Court

POLLARD v. SHAFFER - 1 U.S. 210 (1787) U.S. Supreme Court POLLARD v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 210 (1787) 1 U.S. 210 (Dall.) Pollard v. Shaaffer Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1787 Covenant. The Plaintiff, and one Martha Green (now deceased) made a lease by indenture, dated the 1st of March 1773, of a Sugar House &c.; to John William Hoffman and his assigns for five years at L. 70. per ann. payable quarterly. The Lessee covenanted for himself, his executors, administrators, and assigns, to keep the demised premisses in good repair, and to deliver them up to the Plaintiff, at the end of the term, in such good repair &c.; John William Hoffman assigned the lease to the Defendant, who entered into the premisses. The breach alledged in this action was, that the Defendant had not paid L. 35. rent in arrear for the last half year, nor delivered up the premisses at the end of the term, to wit, the 1st of March 1778, in good order and repair; but that the roof, window- sh...

Tag this Judgment!

1787

Musgrove Vs. Gibbs

Court : US Supreme Court

MUSGROVE v. GIBBS - 1 U.S. 216 (1787) U.S. Supreme Court MUSGROVE v. GIBBS, 1 U.S. 216 (1787) 1 U.S. 216 (Dall.) Musgrove Qui tam etc. v. Gibbs Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1787 This was an action qui tam &c.; on the Act of Assembly against Usury; and, in the course of the trial, the Court resolved the following points: First. Richardson, through the mediation of Shoemaker, borrowed 800 Dollars of the Defendant, and gave his note for 840 Dollars payable in one month. There was no talk about premium at the time of the loan; but it was understood by the witnesses, that the Borrower was to pay at the rate of 5 per cent.'per month for the money. At the end of the month, Richardson paid L.168. on account of his note, and gave a new note, drawn in favor of, and indorsed by, Shoemaker, for the ballance. He discharged the amount of this last note at different times; but it was never given up by the Defendant. Resolved, that this was an illegal loaning of money, not...

Tag this Judgment!

1787

DOANE'S ADM'RS Vs. PENHALLOW

Court : US Supreme Court

DOANE'S ADM'RS v. PENHALLOW - 1 U.S. 218 (1787) U.S. Supreme Court DOANE'S ADM'RS v. PENHALLOW, 1 U.S. 218 (1787) 1 U.S. 218 (Dall.) Doane's Administrators v. Penhallow et al. Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County September Term, 1787 This was a foreign attachment, in which, and in two others against the same Defendants for the same cause, a motion was made to quash the writs. After argument, the President recapitulated the grounds of the motion, and delivered the opinion of the court as follows: Shippen, President. On the hearing of this motion the Plaintiffs were called upon to shew their cause of action: They shew that on the 17th of September 1783, a certain cause, wherein Elisha Doane was claimant and appellant, against the Brigantine Susannah and her cargo, and John Penhallow and others libellants and appellees, was tried in the Court of Appeals in cases of capture established by Congress in the city of Philadelphia. And that it was there finally adjudged and decr...

Tag this Judgment!

1787

Eastwick Vs. Hugg

Court : US Supreme Court

EASTWICK v. HUGG - 1 U.S. 222 (1787) U.S. Supreme Court EASTWICK v. HUGG, 1 U.S. 222 (1787) 1 U.S. 222 (Dall.) Eastwick v. Hugg Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County September Term, 1787 This was an action for money had and received &c.; The Defendant, being Sheriff of Gloucester county in New Jersey, received a sum of money for the Plaintiff, which he lent, with her consent, upon a mortgage of lands in that state. The mortgagor, from time to time, paid the interest to Hugg, and, finally, in the year 1778, paid the whole principal and interest to him in depreciated paper money. It did not appear that Hugg had any express authority from the Plaintiff to receive this payment of the principal from the mortgagor, and she afterwards refused to accept the continental money, insisting that she was entitled to recover the full sum in specie; for which, accordingly, the present action was brought. Upon the trial of the cause, the Court, in their charge, left it to the Jury, t...

Tag this Judgment!


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