Court : US Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. CHAPMAN - 1 U.S. 53 (1781) U.S. Supreme Court RESPUBLICA v. CHAPMAN, 1 U.S. 53 (1781) 1 U.S. 53 (Dall.) Respublica v. Samuel Chapman Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1781 By a proclamation, dated the 15th June 1778, issued by the Supreme Executive Council, in pursuance of the act of Assembly, passed the 6th of March preceeding, for the attainder of divers traitors, &c.; the prisoner had been required to surrender himself on the 1st of August following, &c.; or to be attainted of high treason agreeably to that act. The time allowed for his surrender being elapsed; the Attorney General filed a suggestion, in the usual form, stating that Samuel Chapman the prisoner was the person required by the proclamation to surrender himself, &c.; that he had not surrendered himself, &c.; that he was therefore attainted; and this he was ready to verify, &c.; The Chief Justice then asked the prisoner, what he had to say, why execution should not be awarded against him. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. La Vengeance - 3 U.S. 297 (1796) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. La Vengeance, 3 U.S. 3 Dall. 297 297 (1796) United States v. La Vengeance 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 297 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus Where muskets were carried by the passengers on beard of a French armed vessel from New York to a port in the West Indies, and powder was taken from on board a French frigate in the harbor of New York and carried by this same vessel to Port de Paix, a proceeding against the vessel, as forfeited under the Act of Congress passed 22 May, 1793, prohibiting for one year the exportation of arms and ammunition, is a cause of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. It is a process of the nature of a libel in rem, and does not in any degree touch the person of the offender, and no jury was required for the trial of the same. Where there appeared some ground for the prosecution, costs were refused. It appeared on the return of the record that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
LUDLOW v. BINGHAM - 4 U.S. 47 (1799) U.S. Supreme Court LUDLOW v. BINGHAM, 4 U.S. 47 (1799) 4 U.S. 47 (Dall.) Ludlow, Plaintiff in Error, v. Bingham. * High Court of Errors and Appeals of Pennsylvania. July Session, 1799 IN error. This was an action by the indorsee, against the drawer, of a promissory note; and the following case was submitted for the opinion of the Court: 'Sometime about the end of December 1792, the defendant, for a full and valuable consideration, that is to say, in consideration of Wm. Duer, of the city of New-York, relinquishing to him (the defendant) his the said Wm. Duer's right to a certain portion of a contract, made with the state of Massachusetts, for Page 4 U.S. 47, 48 the purchase of a large tract of land, caused to be paid and delivered at the city of New-York to the said Wm. Duer, the several promissory notes in the declaration mentioned; all of which were drawn by the defendant, payable at the bank of the United States, to the order of Hen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Jennings v. Carson - 8 U.S. 2 (1807) U.S. Supreme Court Jennings v. Carson, 8 U.S. 4 Cranch 2 2 (1807) Jennings v. Carson 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 2 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus The owner of a privateer capturing neutral property is not liable to a decree of restitution unless the property or its proceeds came to his hands. The district courts of the United States are courts of prize, and have power to carry into effect the sentences of the old continental courts of appeals in prize causes. In all proceedings in rem, the court has a right to order the thing to be taken into custody of the law, and it is to be presumed to be in custody of the law unless the contrary appears. The thing does not follow the appeal into the superior court, but remains in the court below, which has a right to order it to be sold, if perishable, notwithstanding the appeal. By the Judicial Act, the district courts of the United States are also courts of admira...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
The @Bello Corrunes,@ - 19 U.S. 152 (1821) U.S. Supreme Court The @Bello Corrunes,@, 19 U.S. 152 (1821) The @Bello Corrunes@ 19 U.S. 152 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF RHODE ISLAND Syllabus A foreign consul has a right to claim or institute a proceeding in rem, where the rights of property of his fellow citizens are in question without a special procuration from those for whose benefit he acts. But a consul cannot receive actual restitution of the res in controversy without a special authority from the particular individuals who are entitled. A capture made by citizens of the United States of property belonging to subjects of a country in amity with the United States is unlawful wheresoever the capturing vessel may have been equipped or by whomsoever commissioned, and the property thus captured, if brought within the neutral limits of this country, will be restored to the original owners. Whatever difficulty there may be under our municipal institutions in punishing a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Morris - 23 U.S. 246 (1825) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Morris, 23 U.S. 10 Wheat. 246 246 (1825) United States v. Morris 23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 246 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus The Secretary of the Treasury has authority under the Remission Act of 3 March, 1797, c. 361 [lvii] to remit a forfeiture or penalty accruing under the revenue laws at any time, before or after a final sentence of condemnation or judgment for the penalty until the money is actually paid over to the collector for distribution. Such remission extends to the shares of the forfeiture or penalty to which the officers of the customs are entitled, as well as to the interest of the United States. Quaere whether an execution upon a judgment obtained in the district Court of Maine could run into and be executed in the Southern District of New York. In a plea of justification by the marshal for not levying an execution, setting forth a remissio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
The Marianna Flora - 24 U.S. 1 (1826) U.S. Supreme Court The Marianna Flora, 24 U.S. 11 Wheat. 1 1 (1826) The Marianna Flora 24 U.S. (11 Wheat.) 1 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus In admiralty proceedings, amendments are made in the appellate court not only as to form, but as to matter of substance, as by the filing a new count to the libel, the parties being permitted, whenever public justice and the substantial merits require it, to introduce new allegations and new proofs, non allegata allegare et non probata probare. If the amendment is made in the circuit court, the cause is heard and adjudicated by that court, and (upon appeal) by this Court on the new allegation, but if the amendment is allowed by this Court, the cause is remanded to the circuit court with directions to permit the amendment to be made. Rights and duties of armed and other ships navigating the ocean in time o peace. An attack made upon a vessel of the United States by an armed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Quincy - 31 U.S. 445 (1832) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Quincy, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 445 445 (1832) United States v. Quincy 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 445 ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION BY THE JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Syllabus Indictments under the third section of the Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, &c.;, passed April 20, 1810. The indictment charged the defendant with being knowingly concerned in fitting out, in the port of Baltimore, a vessel with intent to employ her in the service of a foreign "people," the United Provinces of Buenos Ayres, against the subjects of the Emperor of Brazil, with whom the United States was at peace. The vessel went from Baltimore to St. Thomas, and was there fully armed. She afterwards cruised under the Buenos Ayrean flag. To bring the defendant within the words of the act, it is not necessary to charge him with being concerned in fitti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. The Amistad - 40 U.S. 518 (1841) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. The Amistad, 40 U.S. 15 Pet. 518 518 (1841) United States v. The Amistad 40 U.S. (15 Pet.) 518 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Syllabus The Spanish schooner Amistad, on the 27th day of June, 1839, cleared out from Havana, in Cuba, for Puerto Principe, in the same island, having on board Captain Ferrer, and Ruiz and Montez, Spanish subjects. Captain Ferrer had on board Antonio, a slave; Ruiz had forty-nine negroes; Montez had four negroes, which were claimed by them as slaves, and stated to be their property in passports or documents signed by the Governor General of Cuba. In fact, these African negroes had been, a very short time before they were put on board the Amistad, brought into Cuba by Spanish slave traders in direct contravention of the treaties between Spain and Great Britain and in violation of the laws of Spain. On the voyage o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
McNutt v. Bland - 43 U.S. 9 (1844) U.S. Supreme Court McNutt v. Bland, 43 U.S. 2 How. 9 9 (1844) McNutt v. Bland 43 U.S. (2 How.) 9 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI Syllabus By a law of the State of Mississippi, sheriffs are required to give bond to the governor for the faithful performance of their duty. A citizen of another state has a right to sue upon this bond; the fact that the governor and party sued are citizens of the same state will not oust the jurisdiction of the circuit court of the United States provided the party for whose use the snit is brought is a citizen of another state. Under the resolution passed by Congress in 1789, relating to the use of state jails, and the law of Mississippi passed in 1822, a sheriff has no right to discharge a prisoner in custody by process from the circuit court unless such discharge is sanctioned by an act of Congress or the mode of it adopted as a rule by the circuit court...
Tag this Judgment!