Trigg Vs. Drew

Trigg vs Drew

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1850

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/80186

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/80186
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: 1850
Case Number: 51 U.S. 224
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Trigg

Respondent

Drew

Excerpt

.....of the state of arkansas syllabus the decision in the preceding case of paup v. drew again affirmed. mr. justice mc lean delivered the opinion of the court. this case is here under the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act of 1789, from the supreme court of arkansas, on a writ of error. an action was commenced in the pulaski circuit court on certain bonds given by the plaintiffs in error to archibald yell, governor of the state of arkansas, and his successors in office to pay certain sums of money at the time specified, which page 51 u. s. 225 bonds were negotiable at the principal bank of the state of arkansas and to be paid "in specie or its equivalent," &c.;, in payment for certain tracts of land sold by the governor under a law of the state as a part of the seminary lands given by congress for the support of a seminary under certain acts of congress. a plea was filed setting up in defense a tender of the notes of the state bank of arkansas, and that in the charter of said bank the state bound itself to receive said notes in payment of debts &c.; a judgment was finally entered against the defendants below for ten thousand seven hundred and nine dollars and ten cents and costs. that judgment was taken to the supreme court of the state of arkansas and was there affirmed. as this case is similar in principle to the above case of paup, it is unnecessary to repeat the reasons assigned in that case for the judgment of the court. the judgment of the state court is affirmed. note by the reporter. for the separate opinions of mr. justice catron, mr. justice daniel, mr. justice nelson, and mr. justice grier, see the preceding case of paup v. drew. order this cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record of the supreme court of the state of arkansas and was argued by counsel. on consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment.....

Full Judgment

Trigg v. Drew - 51 U.S. 224 (1850)
U.S. Supreme Court Trigg v. Drew, 51 U.S. 10 How. 224 224 (1850)

Trigg v. Drew

51 U.S. (10 How.) 224

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

SYLLABUS

The decision in the preceding case of Paup v. Drew again affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE Mc LEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case is here under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, from the Supreme Court of Arkansas, on a writ of error.

An action was commenced in the Pulaski Circuit Court on certain bonds given by the plaintiffs in error to Archibald Yell, Governor of the State of Arkansas, and his successors in office to pay certain sums of money at the time specified, which

Page 51 U. S. 225

bonds were negotiable at the principal bank of the State of Arkansas and to be paid "in specie or its equivalent," &c.;, in payment for certain tracts of land sold by the governor under a law of the state as a part of the seminary lands given by Congress for the support of a seminary under certain acts of Congress.

A plea was filed setting up in defense a tender of the notes of the State Bank of Arkansas, and that in the charter of said bank the state bound itself to receive said notes in payment of debts &c.;

A judgment was finally entered against the defendants below for ten thousand seven hundred and nine dollars and ten cents and costs. That judgment was taken to the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas and was there affirmed.

As this case is similar in principle to the above case of Paup, it is unnecessary to repeat the reasons assigned in that case for the judgment of the court. The judgment of the state court is

Affirmed.

Note by the Reporter. For the separate opinions of MR. JUSTICE CATRON, MR. JUSTICE DANIEL, MR. JUSTICE NELSON, and MR. JUSTICE GRIER, see the preceding case of Paup v. Drew.

ORDER

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record of the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this Court that the judgment of the said supreme court in this cause be and the same is hereby affirmed with costs and damages at the rate of six percentum per annum.

Same Parties Trigg vs Drew Same Subject Land Acquisition