Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Boyle Vs. Zacharie

Boyle vs Zacharie

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1832
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/79357

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
31 U.S. 348
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Boyle

Respondent

Zacharie

Excerpt

boyle v. zacharie - 31 u.s. 348 (1832) u.s. supreme court boyle v. zacharie, 31 u.s. 6 pet. 348 348 (1832) boyle v. zacharie 31 u.s. (6 pet.) 348 error to the circuit court for the district of maryland syllabus the judges of this court, who were in the minority of the court upon the general question as to the constitutionality of state insolvent laws, concurred in the opinion of mr. justice johnson in the case of ogden v. saunders, 12 wheat. 213. that opinion is therefore to be deemed the opinion of the other judges, who assented to that judgment. whatever principles are established in that opinion are to be considered no longer open for controversy, but the settled law of the court. before this case came on for argument, mr. wirt, in behalf of the plaintiff (the original defendant), inquired of the court, whether the opinion of mr. justice johnson delivered in the case of ogden v. saunders, 12 wheat. 213, was adopted by the other judges who concurred in the judgment in that case. mr. chief justice marshall said: the judges who were in the minority of the court upon the general question as to the constitutionality of state insolvent laws concurred in the opinion of mr. justice johnson in the case of ogden v. saunders. that opinion is therefore to be deemed the opinion of the other judges who assented to that judgment. whatever principles are established in that opinion are to be considered no longer open for controversy, but the settled law of the court.

Full Judgment

Boyle v. Zacharie - 31 U.S. 348 (1832)
U.S. Supreme Court Boyle v. Zacharie, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 348 348 (1832)

Boyle v. Zacharie

31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 348

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

SYLLABUS

The judges of this Court, who were in the minority of the Court upon the general question as to the constitutionality of state insolvent laws, concurred in the opinion of MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON in the case of Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213. That opinion is therefore to be deemed the opinion of the other judges, who assented to that judgment. Whatever principles are established in that opinion are to be considered no longer open for controversy, but the settled law of the Court.

Before this case came on for argument, Mr. Wirt, in behalf of the plaintiff (the original defendant), inquired of the court, whether the opinion of MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered in the case of Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213, was adopted by the other judges who concurred in the judgment in that case.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL said:

The judges who were in the minority of the Court upon the general question as to the constitutionality of state insolvent laws concurred in the opinion of MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON in the case of Ogden v. Saunders. That opinion is therefore to be deemed the opinion of the other judges who assented to that judgment. Whatever principles are established in that opinion are to be considered no longer open for controversy, but the settled law of the Court.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial