Us Supreme Court Court January 1785 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Wilson'S Lessee vs. Campbell
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1785
WILSON'S LESSEE v. CAMPBELL - 1 U.S. 126 (1785) U.S. Supreme Court WILSON'S LESSEE v. CAMPBELL, 1 U.S. 126 (1785) 1 U.S. 126 (Dall.) Wilson's Lessee v. Campbell Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1785 Ejectment. Yeates, for the defendant, when called upon at the trial to consels Lease, Entry and Ouster, confessed Lease, Entry, and Ouster for part only of the tenements laid in the declaration. This was opposed by Bradford, who contended, that the defendant having taken general defence, when he first pleaded, and entered into the common rule, he must now confess Lease, Entry and Ouster as to the whole; but the plaintiff can recover no more than he proves the defendant to be in possession of. 1 Att. Prac. 317. By the Court: The defendant must in this case, confess Lease, Entry, and Ouster for the whole tenements laid in the declaration.* Footnotes [ Footnote * ] This case was determined at N.P. Carlisle on the 16 May, 1785, before McKean, Chief Justice, &c.;[ Wi...
Carrew Vs. Willing
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1785
CARREW v. WILLING - 1 U.S. 130 (1785) U.S. Supreme Court CARREW v. WILLING, 1 U.S. 130 (1785) 1 U.S. 130 (Dall.) CARREW v. WILLING. Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County June Term, 1785 Capias to June, 1784. The Bail bond sued to September, 1784; and December 1784, judgment was signed on the bail bond suit nifi special bail filed in 30 days. Default was made in filing special bail, and fi: fa: moved to June 1785. And now, August 8, 1785, Sitgreaves filed defendant's affidavit of a just defence, and obtained a rule to show cause, why the proceedings in the bail bond suit should not be stayed on paying costs, pleading issuably in the original action, taking short notice of trial, and consenting that the judgment on the bail bond should stand as a security. He cited Barnes's notes 74. Birch vs Graves. Ib. 85. Otway vs Cockayne. Ibid. 91. Seaber vs Powell. Ibid 112. Morley vs Carr. On the 13th of August, Sergeant, for the plaintiff, showed cause; but, after argument, the r...
Morris Vs. De Mars
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1785
MORRIS v. DE MARS - 1 U.S. 140 (1785) U.S. Supreme Court MORRIS v. DE MARS, 1 U.S. 140 (1785) 1 U.S. 140 (Dall.) Morris v. De Mars Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1785 It was ruled in this case, that a relation of a superior and inferior officer, does not, of itself, bind the former to pay the contracts of the latter, whether in the staff or line. But if the inferior officer had an authority to contract, and having obtained money for the use of the army, applied it accordingly, in such case The Court inclined to think, that the superior would be liable for the debt, provided he had sufficient public funds to discharge it. ...
Brown Vs. Scott
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1785
BROWN v. SCOTT - 1 U.S. 145 (1785) U.S. Supreme Court BROWN v. SCOTT, 1 U.S. 145 (1785) 1 U.S. 145 (Dall.) Brown v. Scott et al. Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County. September Term, 1785 Rule to show cause why the report of referrees should not be set aside. The facts were these: Four actions had been brought upon four promisory notes, and the parties, being willing to refer them, by a written agreement entered a fifth action on the docket, in order to take in another note, which had become due since the return of the preceeding writs; and accordingly the whole were referred to persons nominated by the Court, a rule for that purpose being taken out in each action. The parties were heard before the referrees, and the report agreed upon, when a difficulty occurred, how to apportion the sum that was found due, or in what manner to make the report, if it was not apportioned. The referrees, therefore, applied to a gentleman of the law, who advised them to connect the five r...
In Re Barnet
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1785
IN RE BARNET - 1 U.S. 152 (1785) U.S. Supreme Court IN RE BARNET, 1 U.S. 152 (1785) 1 U.S. 152 (Dall.) Lazarus Barnet's Case. v. Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County. December Term, 1785 Lazarus Barnet having absconded, several foreign attachments were issued against him; and, afterwards, motions were made to set them aside respectively, in favour of a domestic attachment, which had, likewise issued against him. These motions were all founded upon the following affidavit. 'Daniel Benezet maketh oath that on or about the 12th day of May 1783, the deponent let his house in Second Street Philadelphia to a certain Lazarus Barnet; that the said Lazarus Barnet has resided therein and followed the business of a Merchant or Store-keeper from that time' till about two weeks ago, when the said Lazarus absconded from the city, or secreted himself therein, as this deponent is informed. And this deponent further faith, that the said Lazarus Barnet appeared to him to be a married man,...
Taylor Vs. Knox
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1785
TAYLOR v. KNOX - 1 U.S. 158 (1785) U.S. Supreme Court TAYLOR v. KNOX, 1 U.S. 158 (1785) 1 U.S. 158 (Dall.) Taylor and Finlayson v. Knox, et al. Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County. December Term, 1785 Foreign attachments. In these cases rules had been obtained to show cause of action, and why the attachments should not be quashed. On the argument, the garnishee Henderson (who was also a copartner with the defendants) produced several witnesses, by whose testimony the following facts were established: That David Knox came to Philadelphia in the spring of 1784; that he brought furniture with him, hired a dwelling house and store, and professed an intention 'to lay his bones here.' That he went to Virginia in February 1785, and sailed thence to England, in consequence of receiving intelligence of some misconduct of another partner, named Cowan, who resided there, and had never been in America. That during his absence, and at the time of laying the attachments, the copart...
Wharton Vs. Morris
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1785
WHARTON v. MORRIS - 1 U.S. 125 (1785) U.S. Supreme Court WHARTON v. MORRIS, 1 U.S. 125 (1785) 1 U.S. 125 (Dall.) Wharton et. al v. Morris et al. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1785 Debt upon a bond. Plea, payment, with leave to give the special matter in evidence. The case was this: The plaintiffs, copartners; fold to Pleasants, Shore & Co. merchants in Virginia, a considerable quanitity of tobacco in March 1778, when the Pennsylvania scale of depreciation, estimates continental money at the rate of five for one. Articles of agreement were executed between the vendors and the purchasers, in which Plesants, Shore & Co. covenanted to procure Willing, Morris, and Inglis, merchants of Philadelphia, as sureties for the payment of the tobacco; and, accordingly, a bond for that purpose was afterwards executed by those gentlemen, in the penalty of L12,000 on condition to be void, if Pleasants & Co. should pay the sum agreed upon (that is L7 per cent.) 'on the ...
Buckley Vs. Durant
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1785
BUCKLEY v. DURANT - 1 U.S. 129 (1785) U.S. Supreme Court BUCKLEY v. DURANT, 1 U.S. 129 (1785) 1 U.S. 129 (Dall.) Buckley v. Durant Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County June Term, 1785 This was an action of Trover. Non cul. pleaded, and issue. Afterwards the cause was referred, and report made, 'That plaintiff pay to defendant L.3; upon which payment being made, defendant to restore to plaintiff certain articles, for Trover and Conversion of which the action was brought.' Judgment nifi had been entered on this report, and now August 13, 1785, Lewis, for the defendant, offered to state his objections to the confirmation of the report. Sergeant and Bankson objected to going into the argument, and insisted that judgment should be made absolute, because Page 1 U.S. 129, 130 no exceptions to the report had been filed in writing, which they contended ought to have been done, within four days from the entry of the judgment nisi. Lewis admitted, that where the exceptions arose...
Dorrow Vs. Kelly
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1785
DORROW v. KELLY - 1 U.S. 142 (1785) U.S. Supreme Court DORROW v. KELLY, 1 U.S. 142 (1785) 1 U.S. 142 (Dall.) Dorrow Assignee v. Kelly Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County September Term, 1785 This came before the Courts on a case stated; in substance as follows: On the 5th of March 1782, a mortgage was executed by Abel Kelly to Thomas Groome and his assigns, for securing the payment of L47.4.0 with interest on the 5th of March 1783. On the 9th of August 1782, the mortgage was assigned for a valuable consideration to John Dorrow; who sued out a Scire Facias to June Term 1784, the day of payment being past. After the Assignment, and before the Scire Facias sued, Kelly became indebted to the said Dorrow by notes and book accounts in divers sums, which still remain unpaid and payable. Ingersoll, for the defendant, had obtained a rule to show cause why the proceedings on the Scire Facias should not be stayed, upon payment of the principal mortgage money, interests and costs o...
Mccullum Vs. Coxe
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1785
MCCULLUM v. COXE - 1 U.S. 139 (1785) U.S. Supreme Court MCCULLUM v. COXE, 1 U.S. 139 (1785) 1 U.S. 139 (Dall.) M'Cullum v. Coxe Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1785 The jury were at the bar to try the issue in this case, when Levy moved to discontinue, in consequence of a power of attorney granted by the plaintiff for that purpose. But it was opposed by Ingersoll in behalf of General Forman, to whom, for a valuable Page 1 U.S. 139, 140 consideration, the Plaintiff had assigned the debt, and the defendant had undertaken to pay it to him accordingly. These facts being made to appear, The Court said they would not allow any collusive settlement between the original parties, to affect General Forman's bona fide assignment, and ordered the jury to be sworn. And M'Kean, Chief Justice, observed, that where an action was brought under such circumstances, it ought to be mentioned upon the docket for whose use; a practise which had always prevailed when he was at the b...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »