Citation network
Jackson Vs. the Magnolia
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 01, 1857
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
-
Jackson v. TheSearch
-
Magnolia - 61 U.S. 296 (1857) U.S. Supreme Court Jackson v. TheSearch
-
Magnolia, 61 U.S. 20 How. 296 296 (1857) Jackson v. TheSearch
-
is not, like the Mississippi, a boundary between coterminous states. Neither is it, like the Penobscot, See Veazie v. MooreSearch
-
the state. Such a distinction was unknown, nor as it appears from the decision of this Court in the case of Waring v. ClarkSearch
-
a county. This question has been finally adjudicated in this Court, and the argument exhausted, in the case of Waring v. ClarkSearch
-
the court, to the jurisdiction because the collision was within the body of a county or above the tide. See Fritz v. BullSearch
-
Ure v. KauffmanSearch
-
New York and Virginia S.B. Co. v. CalderwoodSearch
-
respondent in this case to say that he has not attempted to impugn the decision of this Court in the case of Waring v. ClarkSearch
-
portion of the river is wholly within the boundary of a single state. It is contended also that the case of Fritz v. BullSearch
-
which it manifestly does not. But it never has been asserted by this Court, either in the case of Fritz v. BullSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
It is upon this mistaken hypothesis that any difficulty is found in reconciling that case with the case of Fritz v. BullSearch
-
no longer evade the question by a judicial notice of an occult tide without ebb or flow, as in the case of Peyroux v. HowardSearch
-
Having, in cases formerly before this Court, vid. 6 How. 395 et seq., New Jersey Steam Navigation Company v. Merchants'Search
-
How. 607, Newton v. StebbinsSearch
-
How. 465, Genesee Chief v. FitzhughSearch
-
How. 269, Ward v. PeckSearch
-
statutes of Richard, and from the days of Owen, Brownlow, Hobart, Fortescue, and Coke. I refer to the case of Clinton v. BrigSearch
-
Hannah, decided by Judge Hopkinson, of Pennsylvania, in 1781, and the case of Shrewsbury v. SloopSearch
-
Page 61 U. S. 312 case of The Thomas Jefferson, in the 10 Wheat. 428, to that of The Genesee Chief v. FitzhughSearch
-
the ebb and flow of the tide, and for the want of that requisite to deny the jurisdiction. In the case of Peroux v. HowardSearch
-
discovery may admit of some doubt. Next follows in order of time the case of The Steamboat New Orleans v. PhoebusSearch
-
Pet. 175. In this case, as in that of Peroux v. HowardSearch
-
In the case of Waring v. ClarkSearch
-
How. 441, and in that of New Jersey Steam Navigation Company v. Merchants'Search
-
attempted upon the powers and rights of internal government appertaining to the states. Speaking of the case of Waring v. ClarkSearch
-
Le Coux v. EdenSearch
-
revolution in its doctrines in these latter years, uniformly treated it. The long and painful discussions from Delovio v. BoitSearch
-
said the Chief justice in Scott v. SandfordSearch
-
Dunlap's Pr. 43. This was the broad pretension for the admiralty set up by Mr. Justice Story in Delovio v. BoitSearch
-
learned successor maintained the same doctrine. Bald. 544. This opinion was assailed by justice Story in Delovio v. BoitSearch
-
I understand justice Curtis to intimate the existence of such an opinion in the Gloucester Insurance Company v. YoungerSearch
-
Curt. 322. Page 61 U. S. 336 The opinion of Justice Story in the cause of Delovio v. BoitSearch
-
limits of the courts of judicature were no longer opposed or contradicted. The error of the opinion in Delovio v. BoitSearch
-
in the opinion is a free translation from the French ordinances. I refer to the opinion in the case of Delovio v. BoitSearch
-
Orleans v. PhoebusSearch
-
which are not to be reconciled with the opinion of the Court in the present cause. In The Steamboat Orleans v. PhoebusSearch
-
In United States v. CoombsSearch
-
In Waring v. ClarkSearch
-
views of the four judges who concurred with JUSTICE WAYNE in the former case, New Jersey Steam Navigation Company v. Merchants'Search
-
want of jurisdiction. From the decision in The Thomas Jefferson in 1825 to that of New Jersey Navigation Company v. Merchants'Search
-
agreed to doctrines wholly irreconcilable with the judgment now given. In 1851, the case of The Genesee Chief v. FitzhughSearch
-
or those among them which are applicable to the River Mississippi, authorized the decisions in The Genesee Chief v. FitzhughSearch
-
and Fritz v. BullSearch
-
argument is to be deduced from the act of 1845 in opposition to it. The learned author of the opinion in Delovio v. BoitSearch
-
its legislation extended. It is apparent that this Court in 1847, and afterwards in 1848, when the suits of Waring v. ClarkSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial