Court : US Supreme Court
New York v. Miln - 36 U.S. 102 (1837) U.S. Supreme Court New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. 11 Pet. 102 102 (1837) New York v. Miln 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 102 ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION IN OPINION OF THE JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus In February, 1824, the Legislature of New York passed "an act concerning passengers in vessels arriving in the port of New York." By one of the provisions of the law, the master of every vessel arriving in New York from any foreign port or from a port of any of the states of the United States other than New York is required, under certain penalties prescribed in the law, within twenty-four hours after his arrival, to make a report in writing containing the names, ages, and last legal settlement of every person who shall have been on board the vessel commanded by him during the voyage, and if any of the passengers shall have gone on board any other vessel or shall, during the voyage, have been lan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Kendall v. United States ex Rel. Stokes - 37 U.S. 524 (1838) U.S. Supreme Court Kendall v. United States ex Rel. Stokes, 37 U.S. 12 Pet. 524 524 (1838) Kendall v. United States ex Rel. Stokes 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 524 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON Syllabus Contracts for carrying the mail of the United States were made by S. & S. with the Postmaster General of the United States out of which certain allowances and credits were made in favor of S. & S. by that officer, and the amount of the same was passed to the credit of S. & S. with the General Post Office. The successor of the Postmaster General struck out the allowances and credits in the accounts, and thus a large sum of money was withheld from the contractors. S. & S. presented a memorial to Congress, and an act was passed authorizing and directing the Solicitor of the Treasury of the United States to settle and adjust the claims of S. & S. according to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Clarke v. Mathewson - 37 U.S. 164 (1838) U.S. Supreme Court Clarke v. Mathewson, 37 U.S. 12 Pet. 164 164 (1838) Clarke v. Mathewson 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 164 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND Syllabus A bill was filed by W., a citizen of Connecticut, against M. and others, citizens of Rhode Island, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Rhode Island. An answer was put in to the bill and the cause was referred to a master for an account. Pending these proceedings, the complainant died, and administration of his effects was granted to C., a citizen of Rhode Island, who filed a bill of reviver in the circuit court. The laws of Rhode Island do not permit a person residing out of the state to take out administration of the effects of a deceased person within the state, and make such administration indispensable to the prosecution and defense of any suit in the state, in right of the estate of the deceased. Held ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Ross v. Duval - 38 U.S. 45 (1839) U.S. Supreme Court Ross v. Duval, 38 U.S. 13 Pet. 45 45 (1839) Ross v. Duval 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 45 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Syllabus A judgment was obtained in the circuit court of the United States for the District of Virginia in December, 1821, and a writ of fieri facias was issued on this judgment in January, 1822, which was not returned, and no other execution was issued until August, 1836, when a capias ad satisfaciendum was issued against the defendant. Held that this execution issued illegally, in consequence of the lapse of time between the rendition of the judgment and the issuing of execution in 1836. The result of the opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1, delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, was that the execution laws of Kentucky, having passed subsequent to the process acts, did not apply to executions issued by the circu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Holmes v. Jennison - 39 U.S. 540 (1840) U.S. Supreme Court Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. 14 Pet. 540 540 (1840) Holmes v. Jennison 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 540 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF THE STATE OF VERMONT Syllabus In the State of Vermont, George Holmes was confined under a warrant issued by the governor of that state directing the Sheriff of the County of Washington to convey and deliver him "to William Brown, the agent of Canada, or to such person or persons as by the laws of said province may be authorized to receive the same at some convenient place on the confines of this state and the said Province of Lower Canada to the end that he, the said George Holmes, may be thence conveyed to the said District of Quebec and be there dealt with as to law and justice appertains." The warrant stated that "George Holmes was in the custody of the sheriff" by reason of a charge of felony sustained by indictment found by the grand jurors of the District of Quebec, in the Prov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Levy v. Fitzpatrick - 40 U.S. 167 (1841) U.S. Supreme Court Levy v. Fitzpatrick, 40 U.S. 15 Pet. 167 167 (1841) Levy v. Fitzpatrick 40 U.S. (15 Pet.) 167 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA In the circuit court, Edmund and David Fitzpatrick, citizens of the State of Virginia, filed a petition stating that the plaintiffs in error, Barnett and Eliza Levy, citizens of Louisiana and resident in the Eastern District of Louisiana, were indebted to them Page 40 U. S. 168 in solido in the sum of $12,100, with interest at the rate of ten percent until paid from the second day of February 1838. That on 26 March, 1838, Barnett Levy, Eliza Levy and one Moses E. Levy (the latter being then a resident in the State of Mississippi, and not within the district of Louisiana) gave their obligation, duly executed by them, to the said Edmund and David Fitzpatrick, binding themselves and each of them in solido to pay to them the said sum of $12,100 on 2 February, 18...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Smith v. Clapp - 40 U.S. 125 (1841) U.S. Supreme Court Smith v. Clapp, 40 U.S. 15 Pet. 125 125 (1841) Smith v. Clapp 40 U.S. (15 Pet.) 125 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA This suit was instituted in the circuit court by the defendant in error against Archibald K. Smith, the plaintiff, and Neil Munn as the makers of a promissory note payable to John Barge or bearer. The note was signed by A. K. Smith and Neil Munn. The writ of capias by which the action was brought stated Archibald K. Smith and Neil Munn to be citizens of the State of Alabama, and that Alfred Clapp was a citizen of the State of New York. The marshal returned, "executed the writ on A. K. Clapp -- Neil Page 40 U. S. 126 Munn not found." The declaration was filed against A. K. Smith, and stated that Neil Munn was not found. A judgment was rendered against A. K. Smith by the circuit court, and this writ of error was prosecuted by him. Page 40 U. S. 127 McKINLEY, Justice, delivere...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Gordon v. Longest - 41 U.S. 97 (1842) U.S. Supreme Court Gordon v. Longest, 41 U.S. 16 Pet. 97 97 (1842) Gordon v. Longest 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 97 ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KENTUCKY Syllabus An action was instituted in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, in the State of Kentucky, by a citizen of that state under an act of the Legislature of Kentucky against a citizen of the State of Pennsylvania to recover damages, alleging the same in the declaration to be one thousand dollars, for having taken on board of the steamboat Guyandotte, commanded by him, a slave belonging to the plaintiff, from the shore of Indiana, on the voyage of the steamboat, proceeding up the Ohio River from Louisville to Cincinnati. The act of the Legislature of Kentucky subjects the master of a steamboat to the penalties created by the law who shall take on board the steamboat under his command a slave from the shore of the Ohio opposite to Kentucky in the same manner as if he had bee...
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!Court : US Supreme Court
Louisville, Cincinnati & Charleston R. Co. v. Letson - 43 U.S. 497 (1844) U.S. Supreme Court Louisville, Cincinnati & Charleston R. Co. v. Letson, 43 U.S. 2 How. 497 497 (1844) Louisville, Cincinnati & Charleston Railroad Company v. Letson 43 U.S. (2 How.) 497 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Syllabus A citizen of one state can sue a corporation which has been created by and transacts its business in another state (the suit being brought in the latter state) although some of the members of the corporation are not citizens of the state in which the suit is brought and although the state itself may be a member of the corporation. The cases of Curtis v. Strawbridge, 3 Cranch 267; Bank United States v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch 84; Commercial and Railroad Bank of Vicksburg v. Slocomb, 14 Pet. 60, reviewed and controlled. The Act of Congress passed on 28 February, 1839, making it "lawful for a court to entertain jurisdiction and pr...
Tag this Judgment!