Field Vs. Seabury

Field vs Seabury

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1856

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/80684

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/80684
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: 1856
Case Number: 60 U.S. 333
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

Field

Respondent

Seabury

Excerpt

field v. seabury - 60 u.s. 333 (1856) u.s. supreme court field v. seabury, 60 u.s. 333 (1856) 60 u.s. 333 (how.) edward field, plaintiff in error, v. pardon g. seabury et al. december term, 1856 this, like the preceding case, was brought up, by writ of error, from the circuit court of the united states for the district of california. it was argued in connection with the preceding case. mr. justice wayne delivered the opinion of the court. page 60 u.s. 333, 334 this case was like the preceding, and they were argued together. for the reasons given in the first of them, the court directs the reversal of the judgment in the court below, in this case.

Full Judgment

FIELD v. SEABURY - 60 U.S. 333 (1856)
U.S. Supreme Court FIELD v. SEABURY, 60 U.S. 333 (1856)

60 U.S. 333 (How.)

EDWARD FIELD, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
PARDON G. SEABURY ET AL.

December Term, 1856

THIS, like the preceding case, was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of California. It was argued in connection with the preceding case.

Mr. Justice WAYNE delivered the opinion of the court.

Page 60 U.S. 333, 334

This case was like the preceding, and they were argued together.

For the reasons given in the first of them, the court directs the reversal of the judgment in the court below, in this case.