Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Ogden Vs. Saunders

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 01, 1827

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, 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

74 entries 2 linked 72 unlinked
Show
  1. Sturges Vs. Crowninshield US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1819
  2. Harrison Vs. Sterry US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1908
  3. U.S. 213 (1827) U.S. Supreme Court Ogden v. Saunders
    Search
  4. U.S. 12 Wheat. 213 213 (1827) Ogden v. Saunders
    Search
  5. it has been supposed by the judges of a highly respectable state court, that it was decided in the case of McMillan v. McNiel
    Search
  6. application of the principle, which had been asserted by the Page 25 U. S. 255 Court in the case of Sturges v. Crowninshield
    Search
  7. the opinion which was pronounced. The principle, however, remained in the opinion of the Court delivered in McMillan v. McNiel
    Search
  8. that this case was not distinguishable in principle from the preceding case of Sturges v. Crowninshield
    Search
  9. The answer is given by THE CHIEF JUSTICE in the case of Sturges v. Crowninshield
    Search
  10. For we are informed by the learned judge who delivered the opinion of this Court in the case of Sturges v. Crowninshield
    Search
  11. which will bear the test of a critical examination. To the decision of this Court made in the case of Sturges v. Crowninshield
    Search
  12. to consider what this Court has already decided on this subject. And this brings under review the two cases of Sturges v. Crowninshield
    Search
  13. and McMillan v. McNeal
    Search
  14. in the 4th vol. of the reports. If the marginal note to the report, or summary of the effect of the case of McMillan v. McNeal
    Search
  15. admitted into the former which the case itself does not justify. The principle recognized and affirmed in McMillan v. McNeal
    Search
  16. The report of the case of Sturges v. Crowninshield
    Search
  17. terms of the adjudication as from inferences deducible from the reasoning of the Court. The case of Sturges v. Crowninshield
    Search
  18. prior to the law as to those posterior to it and therefore inconsistent with the decision in the case of Sturges v. Crowninshield
    Search
  19. leading principles which ought to govern this Court than in the language of the Court itself in the case of Fletcher v. Peck
    Search
  20. prospectively to future contracts. The distinction was taken by the court in the Third Circuit in the case of Golden v. Prince
    Search
  21. the United States does not withdraw the subject entirely from the states is settled by the case of Sturges v. Crowninshield
    Search
  22. Townsend v. Townsend
    Search
  23. lex loci is founded on this principle. The language of the court in the Third Circuit in the case of Campanque v. Burnell
    Search
  24. effect to the contracts according to the laws which gave them validity. So also in this Court, in the case of Renner v. Bank
    Search
  25. to ascertain their intention and the legal and binding force and obligation of their contract. Bank of Columbia v. Oakley
    Search
  26. Wheat. 235, is another case recognizing the same principle. And in the case of Dartmouth College v. Woodward
    Search
  27. might well be considered as falling within the spirit and policy of the prohibition. In the case of Sturges v. Crowninshield
    Search
  28. that the provision was unnecessary. The great principle asserted no doubt is, as laid down by the Court in Sturges v. Crowninshield
    Search
  29. to me very difficult to maintain this proposition. It is, in the first place, at variance with the decision in Sturges v. Crowninshield
    Search
  30. would have expressly ratified and sanctioned laws which they considered unconstitutional. In the case of Sturges v. Crowninshield
    Search
  31. it is a law impairing the obligation of contracts within the meaning of the Constitution. In the case of Sturges v. Crowninshield
    Search
  32. In the case of Sturges v. Crowninshield
    Search
  33. In the case of McMillan v. McNeal
    Search
  34. The learned CHIEF JUSTICE, in delivering the opinion of the Court in Sturges v. Crowninshield
    Search
  35. THE CHIEF JUSTICE very properly remarks of both usury laws and laws of limitation in delivering the opinion in Sturges v. Crowninshield
    Search
  36. to inquire Page 25 U. S. 333 how far it is affected by the former decisions of this Court. In Sturges v. Crowninshield
    Search
  37. used), I have never yet seen cause to be dissatisfied. But that decision is not supposed to be a precedent for Ogden v. Saunders
    Search
  38. Sturges v. Crowninshield
    Search
  39. that the positive authority of a decision is coextensive only with the facts on which it is made. In Sturges v. Crowninshield
    Search
  40. in this case, the contract was entered into after the passage of the law In McNeil v. McMillan
    Search
  41. any view to the law the benefit of which was claimed by the debtor. Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank of Pennsylvania v. Smith
    Search
  42. differed from Sturges v. Crowninshield
    Search
  43. bank to give such notice is performed if it be given when the event has happened. The case of Bank of Columbia v. Oakley
    Search
  44. view of the subject will show us that the two laws stand upon distinct principles. In the case of Sturges v. Crowninshield
    Search
  45. of the validity of a certificate of discharge under the state laws in those cases (argued in connection with Ogden v. Saunders
    Search
  46. each state. The question now to be considered was anticipated in Page 25 U. S. 359 the case of Sturges v. Crowninshield
    Search
  47. Scotland, Ireland, and the West Indies. The first case we have on the effect of foreign discharges, that of Ballantine v. Golding
    Search
  48. occurred in 1783, and the law could hardly be held settled before the case of Hunter v. Potts
    Search
  49. on a debt due the bankrupt in this country and appropriate the proceeds to his own debt. In the case of Harrison v. Sterry
    Search
  50. on which the foreign power is asserted. It would be in vain to assign the decision of this Court in Harrison v. Sterry
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial