Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Page 75593 of about 756,042 results (2.774 seconds)

1788

Butcher Vs. Coats

Court : US Supreme Court

BUTCHER v. COATS - 1 U.S. 340 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court BUTCHER v. COATS, 1 U.S. 340 (1788) 1 U.S. 340 (Dall.) Butcher v. Coats Supreme Court of Pennsylvania July Term, 1788 Two witnesses, who had been duly served with a Subpoenia, were brought before the Court upon an attachment; but having satisfactorily proved, that they were so much indisposed, as to be utterly incapable of attending in obedience to the Subpoena, they were discharged. And, by the Court: As we do not find these persons in contempt, the costs of the attachment must abide the event of the suit.[ Butcher v. Coats 1 U.S. 340 (1788) ] ...

Tag this Judgment!

1788

ingles Vs. Bringhurst

Court : US Supreme Court

INGLES v. BRINGHURST - 1 U.S. 341 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court INGLES v. BRINGHURST, 1 U.S. 341 (1788) 1 U.S. 341 (Dall.) Ingles v. Bringhurst Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County September Term, 1788 Indebitatus Assumpsit for money laid out and expended &c.; The case was this. The Plaintiff, Ingles, had a house in the district of Southwark, against the wall of which one Waters had erected another house. Waters becoming insolvent, his house, on Page 1 U.S. 341, 342 the 1st of August, 1774, was sold under a Venditioni Exponas to one Ridley; but he, also, falling into distress, the house, by virtue of a similar process against him, was again sold, on the 7th of March, 1776, to the Defendant, Bringhurst, for a full and valuable consideration. In the advertisements published on the occasion of these successive sales, no other incumberance was mentioned, than a ground-rent of L 6; and the Defendant had remained in quiet possession of the premisses until about two or thr...

Tag this Judgment!

1788

Geyer Vs. Smith

Court : US Supreme Court

GEYER v. SMITH - 1 U.S. 347 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court GEYER v. SMITH, 1 U.S. 347 (1788) 1 U.S. 347 (Dall.) Geyer v. Smith Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. September Term, 1788 The referees appointed in this cause, applied to the Court for instructions on a point of law, in order to guide them in making their report. But, By the Court. The referees must first exercise their judgment upon the lights they have received; and the question, being afterwards brought regularly before us, we will determine, whether they have acted right, or not. It would not only be an inconvenient practice, but, in a great degree destructive of the principle and uses of a reference, if such applications were to be complied with; and, therefore, we think it is proper to avoid establishing a precedent.* Footnotes [ Footnote * ] Afterwards, in June term 1789, the point of law was argued on the report of the referrees. The action was brought against the Defendant as administrator of Rob...

Tag this Judgment!

1788

Oxley Vs. Cowperthwaite

Court : US Supreme Court

OXLEY v. COWPERTHWAITE - 1 U.S. 349 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court OXLEY v. COWPERTHWAITE, 1 U.S. 349 (1788) 1 U.S. 349 (Dall.) Oxley v. Cowperthwaite, Sheriff Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County September Term, 1788 This was an action against the Sheriff for taking insufficient sureties on a replevin bond; and the question materially discussed on the trial, was, whether a Sheriff is responsible that the sureties shall prove sufficient on the event of the replevin; or only that they were of good credit at the time of their entering into the bond? Sergeant, for the Plaintiff, observed, that the Defendant in replevin could not controul the Sheriff in accepting or rejecting the sureties, and, therefore, he ought not, in justice, to be affected by their eventual insolvency; and, he insisted, that, in law, the Sheriff takes them at his peril, and is answerable for their proving sufficient. Gilb. on Dist. 67. 176. 1 Bac. Abr. 207. Levy, for the Defendant, stated the history, ...

Tag this Judgment!

1788

Walton Vs. Willis

Court : US Supreme Court

WALTON v. WILLIS - 1 U.S. 351 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court WALTON v. WILLIS, 1 U.S. 351 (1788) 1 U.S. 351 (Dall.) Walton v. Willis Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1788 This was an appeal from the Orphan's Court of the county of Philadelphia. It was argued in January term by Levy and Tilghman for the Appellant; and Sergeant and Ingersol for the Appellee. And now the Chief Justice stated the case, and delivered the opinion of the Court, in the following manner. M'Kean, Chief Justice. Elizabeth Willis being seized of a messuage and lot of land in the city of Philadelphia, with the appurtenances, died intestate, leaving issue a daughter named Elizabeth, who had intermarried with Samuel Walton, the Appellant, and by him had issue two sons, Joseph and Booz; and four grand-children, to wit, Thomas the Respondent, Solomon, Musgrove and Rebecca, being the children of her son Solomon Willis deceased, who had died, before her, intestate. The daughter, Elizabeth Walton, died...

Tag this Judgment!

1788

Hart Vs. James

Court : US Supreme Court

HART v. JAMES - 1 U.S. 355 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court HART v. JAMES, 1 U.S. 355 (1788) 1 U.S. 355 (Dall.) Hart et al. v. James. 2 Actions Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1788 These actions were brought upon three promissory notes, two of which ( included in one declaration) had been indorsed to the Bank; and the third was in the possession of Messrs. Hartshorne and Large, as a collateral security from the Plaintiffs, for the payment of a debt amounting to nearly the sum mentioned in the note. In both actions judgments had been entered generally, on the 28th of April, 1788, with an agreement in each, that the quantum should be ascertained by a reference, and a report made to next term. The referees, however, were not appointed untill the 8th of July, 1788, six days after the commencement of the term, and they made no report untill the 5th of August following; when one report was made in favor of the Plaintiffs, for one sum, including what was due in both actions. ...

Tag this Judgment!

1788

Case of Starret

Court : US Supreme Court

CASE OF STARRET - 1 U.S. 356 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court CASE OF STARRET, 1 U.S. 356 (1788) 1 U.S. 356 (Dall.) Starrett's Case v. Circuit Court, Pennsylvania District Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1788 Henry Starret, while attending the Court as a suitor, was taken by a Ca. Sa. and Chambers moved that he might be discharged from the arrest, citing 4 Bac. 421. 3 Bl. C. 289. 2 Stra. 1094. 1 Barn. 17. Yeates and C. Smith opposed the motion, and contended, that there was a distinction between an arrest on mesne, and on judicial, process; for, though, in the former case, the Court would discharge a suitor, witness, & c. from an arrest made during an attendance upon them, yet, in the latter, they would not, because the party would afterwards be remediless. Wood's Inst. 503. 600. 4 Com.Dig. 475. II Mod. 234. 252. There is, likewise, another reason: the Capias on mesne process might be taken out merely on a suggestion; but in judicial process, the debt is certain, ...

Tag this Judgment!

1788

Respublica Vs. Sparhawk

Court : US Supreme Court

RESPUBLICA v. SPARHAWK - 1 U.S. 357 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court RESPUBLICA v. SPARHAWK, 1 U.S. 357 (1788) 1 U.S. 357 (Dall.) Respublica v. Sparhawk Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1788 This was an appeal from the Comptroller General's decision, on the trial of which, by consent of the Attorney General, Sparhawk was considered as Plaintiff. There was a verdict and judgment nisi for the Commonwealth, when Ingersol obtained a rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted. The case was this: Congress, perceiving that it was the intention of the British army to possess themselves of Philadelphia, and being informed that considerable deposits of provisions &c.; were made in that city, entered into a resolution on the 11th of April, 1777, that 'a Committee should be appointed to examine into the truth of their information; and, if it was found true, to take effectual measures, in conjunction with the Pennsylvania Board of War, to prevent such provisions ...

Tag this Judgment!

1788

Kunkle Vs. Kunckle

Court : US Supreme Court

KUNKLE v. KUNCKLE - 1 U.S. 364 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court KUNKLE v. KUNCKLE, 1 U.S. 364 (1788) 1 U.S. 364 (Dall.) Kunckle v. Kunckle Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County December Term, 1788 Exceptions were filed to the report of Referees in this cause; which were argued on the 20th of November, by Wilson and Todd, for the Defendant; and Sergeant for the Plaintiff. The President now stated the material circumstances; and delivered the opinion of the Court as follows: Shippen, President. This is a motion to set aside the report of Referees, on two grounds: 1st, For the misbehaviour of the two Referees, who signed the report, in deciding the dispute without notice to the third Referee, who did not sign it. The evidence by no means supports this objection, as it appears that the two Referees had agreed upon the substance of their report in the presence of the third Referee, who declared his disagreement, and said the others could make the report without him. The 2nd obje...

Tag this Judgment!

1788

Gorgerat Vs. Mccarty

Court : US Supreme Court

GORGERAT v. MCCARTY - 1 U.S. 366 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court GORGERAT v. MCCARTY, 1 U.S. 366 (1788) 1 U.S. 366 (Dall.) Gorgerat et al. v. M'Carty Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County December Term, 1788 On a rule to show cause why the Defendant should not be discharged on common bail, M'Carty stated in his deposition, that, being considerably embarrassed, he had, according to the laws of France, declared himself a bankrupt by filing a statement of his debts and credits, and delivering all his books and papers into the Consular Court of L'Orient, for the benefit of his creditors; the principal part of whom, in consequence of this surrender, had met together, appointed Trustees, or Syndics, in the usual form, and then granted him a letter of license for three years, together with a power of attorney, to collect his outstanding debts in America, in order to remit the same for their use; stipulating, however, that he should return to France within one year from the time of hi...

Tag this Judgment!


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