Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Page 75602 of about 756,152 results (2.175 seconds)

1788

Williams Vs. Geheogan

Court : US Supreme Court

WILLIAMS v. GEHEOGAN - 1 U.S. 267 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court WILLIAMS v. GEHEOGAN, 1 U.S. 267 (1788) 1 U.S. 267 (Dall.) Williams v. Geheogan Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1788 Moylan, in showing cause against a rule for a Special Court, at the instance of the Plaintiff, contended, first, that Williams was not within the description of the persons for whom the act provides a summary relief; and, secondly, that the difficulty of obtaining the Defendant's testimony at a short notice, was a sufficient reason to induce the Court to discharge the rule. On the first point, it was stated, that Williams was not in America at the time when the debt was contracted, for which this action was brought; but that he came hither merely to collect the debts of a house, in which he had formerly been a partner; that, therefore, he could not claim the benefit of the act, which, it was urged, extended only to foreigners, who came to this country in the way of trade, who resided here wh...

Tag this Judgment!

1788

Guthrie Vs. White

Court : US Supreme Court

GUTHRIE v. WHITE - 1 U.S. 268 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court GUTHRIE v. WHITE, 1 U.S. 268 (1788) 1 U.S. 268 (Dall.) Guthrie Assignee v. White Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1788 A certiorari was issued to John Culbertson Esq; one of the Justices for the county of Chester, to remove the proceedings in this cause; and the record being accordingly returned, it appeared that one Irwin, having maintained the Defendant's daughter for several weeks, made out an account against him, and, after swearing to the truth and justice of its contents, he assigned all his right, title, and interest therein to the Plaintiff. The debt being under ten pounds, the Plaintiff, in his own name, sued the father before the Justice upon this assignment, and obtained a judgment and execution against him; although, as it was stated in the Defendant's deposition, his daughter was of full age at the time of contracting the debt, and no assumption, upon his part, had been proved or suggested. Bradfor...

Tag this Judgment!

1788

Tillier Vs. Whitehead

Court : US Supreme Court

TILLIER v. WHITEHEAD - 1 U.S. 269 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court TILLIER v. WHITEHEAD, 1 U.S. 269 (1788) 1 U.S. 269 (Dall.) Tillier v. Whitehead Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1788 This was a feigned issue to try, whether the Defendant had a legal authority to use the Plaintiff's name in the acceptance, drawing, and indorsement of bills of exchange, and promissory notes. The case was this: Rudolph Tillier, and Clement Biddle entered into articles of agreement on the 30th of January 1783, by which a special Partnership was established between them. The Defendant Whitehead was employed as a clerk by Biddle in his general transactions; and a memorandum, written and subscribed by Biddle alone, under two firms, that is, 'Clement Biddle and Co.' and also 'Clement Biddle and Co. and Rudolph Tillier,' was lodged in the Bank; declaring that Whitehead's acceptances, indorsements, and drafts under those firms, were good and binding on the parties. It appeared, accordingly, that Wh...

Tag this Judgment!

1788

Steinmetz Vs. Currie

Court : US Supreme Court

STEINMETZ v. CURRIE - 1 U.S. 270 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court STEINMETZ v. CURRIE, 1 U.S. 270 (1788) 1 U.S. 270 (Dall.) Steinmetz et al. v. Currie Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1788 This action, brought by the indorsees of a bill of exchange, against one of the indorsors, now came on for a second trial.* It was very ably discussed by Ingersoll for the Plaintiff, and Sergeant and Bradford for the Defendant; but, as the circumstances and principles of the case, are accurately preserved in the charge of the court, it is unnecessary to give any other statement of the facts or arguments, than that delivered by the CHIEF JUSTICE. M'Kean, Chief Justice. This is an action of very considerable importance, not only as it affects the present parties, but as it affects every holder, drawer, or indorsor of a bill of exchange. The honor and justice of the State are, indeed, likewise interested, that the decision should be conformably to the general mercantile law of nations, left a ...

Tag this Judgment!

1788

MifflIn Vs. Bingham

Court : US Supreme Court

MIFFLIN v. BINGHAM - 1 U.S. 272 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court MIFFLIN v. BINGHAM, 1 U.S. 272 (1788) 1 U.S. 272 (Dall.) Mifflin et al. v. Bingham Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1788 The Plaintiffs, being disappointed in their evidence, voluntarily suffered a nonsuit. The following points, however, were resolved in the course of the trial, to illustrate which, it is necessary to relate the leading circumstances of the case. The Plaintiffs were Page 1 U.S. 272, 273 owners of a Privateer called the Rattlesnake, commanded by Captain M'Collough. This Privateer, having taken a valuable prize, during the late war with Great Britain, carried her into Martinique, where the Defendant resided as agent for the United States. At the time of her arrival, the Defendant was exceedingly embarrassed on account of certain pecuniary engagements, which he had entered into for the public; and, in order to relieve himself, he applied to captain M'Cullough for the use of the proceeds of the ...

Tag this Judgment!

1788

Lewis Vs. Maris

Court : US Supreme Court

LEWIS v. MARIS - 1 U.S. 278 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court LEWIS v. MARIS, 1 U.S. 278 (1788) 1 U.S. 278 (Dall.) Lewis, Appellant v. Maris, Appellee High Court of Errors and Appeals of Pennsylvania April Sessions, 1788 This was an appeal from the Decree of the Register of Wills, and two Justices of the Court of Common Pleas of the county of Montgomery, who admitted an instrument bearing date the 25th of the Tenth Month, 1786, purporting to be the last will and Testamont of one Jephtha Lewis, the father of the Appellant, to be proved as a good Will and Testament in writing, although it had neither been written, nor subscribed, by the supposed testator, upon the deposition of John Evans, a scrivener, that it was drawn at his request, and conformably to his instructions, but never read to him after it was written. This instrument contained a devise of real estate, and a legacy of L.400. for the use of a school, in the township of Gwyned, and county of Montgomery; and upon the validity...

Tag this Judgment!

1788

Kirkbride Vs. Durden

Court : US Supreme Court

KIRKBRIDE v. DURDEN - 1 U.S. 288 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court KIRKBRIDE v. DURDEN, 1 U.S. 288 (1788) 1 U.S. 288 (Dall.) Kirkbride et al. Plfs. in Err. v. Durden High Court of Errors and Appeals of Pennsylvania. April Sessions, 1788 The Plaintiffs in Error had executed a Bond, bearing date the 23rd of October, 1784, to the Defendant, with a warrant to confess Judgment thereon, directed 'To Wm. Lewis, Attorney of the Court of Common Pleas at Newtown, in the county of Backs, or to Page 1 U.S. 288, 289 any other Attorney, of my other Court, and at the same time a mortgage of lands in the same county, as a collateral security.' The Judgment was entered in the Supreme Court, as of Bucks county of September Term 1787; whereupon a writ of Error was send out, in order to set the Judgment aside, and the following errors assigned: 1st. That the Judgment was entered in the Supreme Court for a debt which arose before the passing of the Act of Assembly, that gave original jurisdiction to th...

Tag this Judgment!

1788

Tetter Vs. Rapesnyder

Court : US Supreme Court

TETTER v. RAPESNYDER - 1 U.S. 293 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court TETTER v. RAPESNYDER, 1 U.S. 293 (1788) 1 U.S. 293 (Dall.) Tetter v. Rapesnyder Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County June Term, 1788 The parties, having consented to a reference, filed a written agreement appointing three persons, without saying or any two of them, to report; but the Clerk, in making out the rule, had so expressed it. The three referees met, though only two of them signed the report; and now Lawrence moved to set it aside, on account of this variance between the rule and the agreement of the parties, offering to examine a witness, who was present at the transaction, to shew that it was intended all the referees should concur. See Fitzg. 215. To this, Ingersoll, for the Plaintiff, objected; and said, that where parties have reduced their agreement to writing, particularly in the case of a record, nothing by way of addition or alteration was admissible. To prove a name meant, or a fraud committe...

Tag this Judgment!

1788

Morgan Vs. Eckart

Court : US Supreme Court

MORGAN v. ECKART - 1 U.S. 295 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court MORGAN v. ECKART, 1 U.S. 295 (1788) 1 U.S. 295 (Dall.) Morgan v. Eckart et al. & Bower Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County June Term, 1788 On a rule to shew cause, why the arrests in these actions, should not be set aside, it appeared, that Eckart, being the Lieutenant of Banks county, came to Philadelphia in order to obtain from the Executive Council the commissions of some Officers of the Militia within his department; that Bower, being one of the Sheriffs elect of the same county, came for the purpose of soliciting his commission, and giving the usual security; and that while here for these respective purposes, they were both arrested at the suit of the Plaintiff. Tilghman, in support of the rule, contended, that the Defendants were privileged from arrest, on account of the public nature of the business which brought them to Philadelphia; and stated, as the great principle upon which privilege and protecti...

Tag this Judgment!

1788

Bolton Vs. Martin

Court : US Supreme Court

BOLTON v. MARTIN - 1 U.S. 296 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court BOLTON v. MARTIN, 1 U.S. 296 (1788) 1 U.S. 296 (Dall.) Bolton v. Martin Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County June Term, 1788 The Defendant was one of the members from Bedford county, in the State convention, which assembled at Philadelphia, to take into consideration the adoption, or rejection, of the constitution proposed for the Government of the United States, by the Federal Convention on the 17th of September 1787. During his attendance upon this duty, he was served with a Summons at the suit of the Plaintiff; and Sergeant obtained a rule to shew cause, why the Process should Page 1 U.S. 296, 297 not be quashed upon a suggestion, that the Defendant; acting in this public capacity, was entitled to privilege? The case was elaborately argued by Levy for the Plaintiff; and Sergeant and Bradford for the Defendant. Levy represented the question to be, simply, whether a member of the State Convention was protected, ...

Tag this Judgment!


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