Court : US Supreme Court
Hills v. Ross - 3 U.S. 184 (1796) U.S. Supreme Court Hills v. Ross, 3 U.S. 3 Dall. 184 184 (1796) Hills v. Ross 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 184 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA Syllabus It is not a cause of reversal in this Court of the decree of the circuit court that the record is insufficient to show the grounds of the decree of the circuit court. On the return of the record, several errors were assigned, but the only one now relied on states "that the facts on which the circuit court had founded their decree did not appear fully upon the record, either from the pleadings and decree itself or a state of the case agreed to by the parties or their counsel or by a stating of the case by the court," as required by the 19th section of the Judiciary Act. On examining this record it was found that no statement of facts had been made either by the court or the parties, nor did it appear from the pleadings and decree upon what facts the decree of the circuit court had...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Schooner Peggy - 5 U.S. 103 (1801) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Schooner Peggy, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 103 103 (1801) United States v. Schooner Peggy 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 103 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CONNECTICUT Syllabus A sentence of condemnation as prize in the circuit court, although denominated "a final sentence," is not a definitive sentence in the sense in which that term is used in the convention between the United States and the French Republic, finally ratified on 21 December, 1801, and a vessel captured as prize and condemned by the sentence of the circuit court previous to the signature of the convention, but from which sentence a writ of error was prosecuted to this Court and was depending at the time of the ratification, was restored to the owners under the stipulations of the fourth article of condemnation. The obligation of a treaty, the supreme law of the land, must be admitted by the Court. The execution of the contract between the two nati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Rhinelander v. Insurance Company of Pennsylvania - 8 U.S. 29 (1807) U.S. Supreme Court Rhinelander v. Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, 8 U.S. 4 Cranch 29 29 (1807) Rhinelander v. Insurance Company of Pennsylvania 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 29 ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION AMONG THE JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus A capture of a neutral vessel as prize by a belligerent armed vessel is a total loss under a policy of insurance, and the assured is entitled thereon to abandon. A capture by one belligerent from another constitutes, in the technical sense of the word, a total loss, and gives an immediate right to the assured to abandon to the insurers, although the vessel may be afterwards recaptured or restored. An embargo or detention by a foreign friendly power, constitutes a total loss, and warrants an immediate abandonment. The contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity, and therefore the assured can "only recover according to the damage he has sus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Yeaton v. The General Pinckney - 9 U.S. 281 (1809) U.S. Supreme Court Yeaton v. The General Pinckney, 9 U.S. 5 Cranch 281 281 (1809) Yeaton v. The General Pinckney 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 281 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Syllabus In admiralty cases, an appeal suspends the sentence altogether, and the cause is to be heard in the appellate court as if no sentence had been pronounced. If the law under which the sentence of condemnation was pronounced be repealed after sentence in the court below, and before final sentence in the appellate court, no sentence of condemnation can be pronounced unless some special provision be made for that purpose by statute. This was an appeal from the sentence of the Circuit Court for the District of Maryland, which condemned the schooner General Pinkney and cargo, for breach of the act of Congress prohibiting intercourse with certain ports of the Island of St. Domingo, passed February 28, 1806. Vol. 8, p. 11. This act ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Peters - 9 U.S. 115 (1809) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. 5 Cranch 115 115 (1809) United States v. Peters 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115 Syllabus The legislature of a State cannot annul the judgments, nor determine the jurisdiction, of the courts of the United States. The Court of Appeals in prize causes, erected by the Continental Congress, had power to revise and correct the sentences of the State courts of admiralty. Although the claims of a State may be ultimately affected by the decision of a cause, yet, if the State be not necessarily a defendant, the courts of the United States are bound to exercise jurisdiction. If the legislatures of the several states may at will annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery, and the Nation is deprived of the means of enforcing its laws by the instrumentality of its own tribunals. The right of a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Kempe's Lessee v. Kennedy - 9 U.S. 173 (1809) U.S. Supreme Court Kempe's Lessee v. Kennedy, 9 U.S. 5 Cranch 173 173 (1809) Kempe's Lessee v. Kennedy 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 173 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Syllabus The Inferior Court of Common Pleas for the County of Hunterdon, in the State of New Jersey, in May, 1779, had a general jurisdiction in all cases of inquisition for treason, and its judgment, although erroneous, was not void, inasmuch as the court had jurisdiction of the cause. Error to the Circuit Court of the District of New Jersey in an action of ejectment brought by John Den, lessee of Grace Kempe, a British subject, against R. Kennedy and M. Cowell, citizens of the State of New Jersey, for land in that state. Upon the trial of the cause upon the general issue, a bill of exceptions was taken by the plaintiff which presents the following case: Grace Coxe, the lessor of the plaintiff, being seized in fee of the land in question, before the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Slacum v. Pomery - 10 U.S. 221 (1810) U.S. Supreme Court Slacum v. Pomery, 10 U.S. 6 Cranch 221 221 (1810) Slacum v. Pomery 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 221 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SITTING IN ALEXANDRIA Syllabus In an action by the endorsee against the endorser of a foreign bill of exchange, the defendant is liable for damages according to the law of the place where the bill was endorsed. The endorsement is a new and substantive contract. In an action of debt against the endorser of a bill of exchange under the statute of Virginia, it is necessary that the declaration should aver notice of the protest for nonpayment. It is not too late to allege as error in the appellate court a fault in the declaration which ought to have prevented the rendition of a judgment in the court below. Error to the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia sitting in Alexandria in an action of debt (under the law of Virginia) brought by Pomery against Slacum, as endorser o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Maine Insurance Company of Alexandria v. Hodgson - 10 U.S. 206 (1810) U.S. Supreme Court Maine Insurance Company of Alexandria v. Hodgson, 10 U.S. 6 Cranch 206 206 (1810) Maine Insurance Company of Alexandria v. Hodgson 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 206 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ALEXANDRIA Syllabus In an action of covenant on a policy under seal, all special matter of defense must be pleaded. Under the plea of covenants performed, the defendant cannot give evidence which goes to vacate the policy. After a cause is remanded to the inferior court, such court may receive additional pleas or admit amendments to those already filed, even after the appellate court has decided such pleas to be bad upon demurrer. The refusal of an inferior court to allow a plea to be amended or a new plea to be filed or to grant a new trial or to continue a cause cannot be assigned as error. It is a useless practice to read the proceedings in a foreign court of a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Goodwin - 11 U.S. 108 (1812) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Goodwin, 11 U.S. 7 Cranch 108 108 (1812) United States v. Goodwin 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 108 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus No writ of error lies to the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse the judgment of a circuit court in a civil action which has been carried up to the circuit court from the district court by writ of error. This was an action of debt brought originally in the District Court for the District of Pennsylvania by the United States against John Goodwin for $15,000, as a penalty for not entering goods agreeably to the prime cost, at the place of exportation, with intent to defraud the revenue. The judgment of the district court, which was in favor of the United States, was, upon a writ of error, reversed in the circuit court, and thereupon the United States sued out the present writ of error to this Court. A doubt having been suggested whe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
The Frances - 12 U.S. 348 (1814) U.S. Supreme Court The Frances, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 348 348 (1814) The Frances 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 348 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RHODE ISLAND Syllabus Where the affidavits produced on the order for further proof are positive, but their credibility impaired by the nonproduction of letters mentioned in the affidavits, a second order for further proof will be allowed in the appellate court. There are certain rules of evidence, the authority of which is admitted in all courts. One of these is that if a written paper be referred to, which paper is in the power of the party, it ought to be produced. This case, like the preceding, was an appeal from the District Court of Rhode Island. and the claim of John Graham, the appellant, was to certain other goods by the same ship, the Frances, captured and carried into Rhode Island, as stated in the case referred to, by the Yankee privateer. The material facts of the case, and the substance of the ...
Tag this Judgment!