Us Supreme Court Court January 1786 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.
Pirate Vs. Dalby
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1786
PIRATE v. DALBY - 1 U.S. 167 (1786) U.S. Supreme Court PIRATE v. DALBY, 1 U.S. 167 (1786) 1 U.S. 167 (Dall.) Pirate, alias Belt v. Dalby Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1786 Since the act for the gradual abolition of slavery, a number of persons have formed a society in Philadelphia, for the purpose of relieving those of their fellow creatures, who are held in illegal slavery; and this action is owing to that institution. The plaintiff, being the supposed issue of white and mulattoe parents, attended the defendant to Philadelphia in the autumn of 1784, and presented so pure a complexion, that the attention of the society was excited, and a writ of Hubeas corpus taken out at their instance. The boy's right to freedom was first argued before Mr. Justice Bryan, and, the next day, before the same judge, and the CHIEF JUSTICE, at their chambers; when the facts being disputed, the CHIEF JUSTICE advised the counsel to throw the case into the form of an action de Homine r...
James Vs. Allen
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1786
JAMES v. ALLEN - 1 U.S. 188 (1786) U.S. Supreme Court JAMES v. ALLEN, 1 U.S. 188 (1786) 1 U.S. 188 (Dall.) James et al. v. Allen Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County September Term, 1786 The case was this: The Plaintiffs and the Defendant had been concerned together in trade; and upon settling their accounts, a considerable ballance appeared against Allen; for the recovery of which an action was brought in the State of New Jersey in May 1782; and judgment was therein obtained in November following, when a Fi. fa. issued, and on a return of Nulia bona to that writ, a Ca. Sa. was sued out returnable to May 1783 In the mean time, the Defendant, on the 27th of April 1783, was arrested in Pennsylvania for the same debt, and gave bail; but, on his return to New Jersey, he was there taken on the Ca. Sa. which Page 1 U.S. 188, 189 had issued in that State against him; and, afterwards, in October, 1783, was discharged by their Act of Insolvency. A rule to plead had been entere...
Dutilh Vs. Ritchie
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1786
DUTILH v. RITCHIE - 1 U.S. 171 (1786) U.S. Supreme Court DUTILH v. RITCHIE, 1 U.S. 171 (1786) 1 U.S. 171 (Dall.) Dutilh v. Ritchie Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County June Term, 1786 This was a Replevin for divers goods, wares &c.; and property was pleaded in Andrew Clow, and others, assignees for the benefit of the defendant's creditors. The facts were these: The Defendant had bought certain goods, for which he gave a promissory note, that was afterwards indorsed to the plaintiff, who went (probably by desire of the Payee) to purchase goods from the defendant on the 8th of April 1785, about five o'clock in the afternoon. He told the Defendant, on entering his shop, that he came to take goods in payment of the note, and the defendant (whose attention was taken up, at the same time, by several other customers) handed him such articles as he pointed out, mentioning their respective prices. The Plaintiff marked those pieces which he approved of, and laid them on one ...
Cecil'S Lessee vs. Lebenstone
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1786
CECIL'S LESSEE v. LEBENSTONE - 2 U.S. 95 (1786) U.S. Supreme Court CECIL'S LESSEE v. LEBENSTONE, 2 U.S. 95 (1786) 2 U.S. 95 (Dall.) Cecil's Lessee v. Lebenstone* Supreme Court of Pennsylvania May Session, 1786 The defendant was tenant for years of the premises, for which the ejectment was brought, and one Courtney claimed the fee. The cause was not included in the general distringas which had issued for trials, at this Court of Nisi Prius; but a special distringas afterwards came up for it. Neither the defendant, nor Courtney, however, had received express or implied Page 2 U.S. 95, 96 notice of trial, from the sheriff, or any other person: And, therefore, a motion to bring it on was refused. By the Court: The defendant has not received such notice of trial, as made it reasonable for him to prepare. No laches can be imputed to him; for, he is not obliged to attend at every Court, whether his cause is marked for trial, or not. In England the proof of actual notice is requir...
Sliver Vs. Shelback
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1786
SLIVER v. SHELBACK - 1 U.S. 165 (1786) U.S. Supreme Court SLIVER v. SHELBACK, 1 U.S. 165 (1786) 1 U.S. 165 (Dall.) Sliver, Plaintiff in Err. v. Shelback Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1786 This was a question on a writ of error, brought to reverse a judgment in the Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, against the plaintiff in error, when within age. The record of the Court below, stated, that the defendant ( now plaintiff) appeared in person, imparled to the next term, and then appeared and said nothing; wherefore, &c.; The plaintiff attained his full age before he brought the writ of error. Levy, for the plaintiff in error, cited 8 Mod. 185. Rep. imp. Hardw. 104. 376. 1 Bl.Com. 465. Cro. El. 569. 818. Lill.Ent. 252. 3. Bac. Abr. 149. But, as his arguments were afterwards admitted, and repeated by the Court, it is unnecessary to insert them here. Lewis, for the defendant in error. Infancy must be tried by inspection, 3. Bl. Com. 331. By the record it is state...
Moore'S Lessee vs. Few
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1786
MOORE'S LESSEE v. FEW - 1 U.S. 170 (1786) U.S. Supreme Court MOORE'S LESSEE v. FEW, 1 U.S. 170 (1786) 1 U.S. 170 (Dall.) Moore's Lessee v. Few, et al. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1786 This was an Ejectment for certain premises in the County of Philadelphia. After solemn argument by Wilcocks and Rawle, for the plaintiff; and the Attorney General and Sergeant, for the defendant; THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the Court, that the word transfer, being used among the disabilities to which Non jurors are subjected by the act of Assembly, passed the 13th of June 1777, the testator John Hunt, under whose devise the plaintiff's title was made, being at the time of his death a Non juror, was incapable of devising lands and tenements. And consequently the defendants, claiming under the heir at law, had judgment. ...
Pennington Vs. Scott
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1786
PENNINGTON v. SCOTT - 2 U.S. 94 (1786) U.S. Supreme Court PENNINGTON v. SCOTT, 2 U.S. 94 (1786) 2 U.S. 94 (Dall.) Pennington v. Scott* Supreme Court of Pennsylvania May Session, 1786 This cause being marked for trial, the defendant moved to postpone it, upon an affidavit, stating, 'that he took out a subpoena three weeks ago, as soon as the time for holding the Court was known, and immediately employed one Rabb to serve it on the witness, who lived at a distance; that he had, likewise, sent, by the messenger, a letter to his Brother, requesting him to see that the subpoena was served, and the witness expedited, in case of any accident to Rabb; that the witness was material, without whose testimony, the defendant could not safely go to trial; that Rabb had not returned, nor had the defendant heard any thing of him since his departure; and that he thinks it probable that the attendance of the witness might be procured at the next Court.' Yates insisted, that the defendant must...
Purviance Vs. Angus
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1786
PURVIANCE v. ANGUS - 1 U.S. 180 (1786) U.S. Supreme Court PURVIANCE v. ANGUS, 1 U.S. 180 (1786) 1 U.S. 180 (Dall.) Purviance et al. v. Angus High Court of Errors And Appeals of Pennsylvania September Sessions, 1786 This was an Appeal from the Court of Admiralty. It was argued on the 7th and 8th of July by Lewis, Wilcocks, and Sergeant for the Appellants; and by Bradford, Ingersol, and Wilson for the Respondent . The Court held the matter for sometime under advisement, in hopes that a compromise would have taken place between the parties; but on the 27th of September THE CHIEF JUSTICE, delivered the following judgment. M'KEAN, CHIEF JUSTICE. I will state the case as it appears before the Court from the proceedings, and the evidence, which are not controverted on either side; and shall then taken notice of those points which have been disputed. The Appellants on the 28th day of August 1779, were owners of a Brigantine, called the Hibernia, then riding at anchor in the port o...
Kunckel Vs. Baker
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1786
KUNCKEL v. BAKER - 1 U.S. 169 (1786) U.S. Supreme Court KUNCKEL v. BAKER, 1 U.S. 169 (1786) 1 U.S. 169 (Dall.) Kunckel et al. v. Baker Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1786 This was an application for a special Court, founded on the act passed the 10th of April, 1782. Kunckel, the petitioner, set forth in his affidavit, that one of the plaintiffs, Boom, with whom he had been in partnership, had dissolved their connection, since the commencement of the action, and that the outstanding debts had been asigned to Kunckel, so as to vest in him the whole interest in the event of the action. It was also stated that Kunckel was about to depart from the United States; but that Boom had no such intention. The Attorney General, for the defendant, objected, that, by thus assigning the interest in an action to a going foreigner, a special Court, and an early judgment, might always be within reach, to the prejudice not only of the defendants but of other creditors. And upon this ...
Hollingsworth Vs. Leiper
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1786
HOLLINGSWORTH v. LEIPER - 1 U.S. 161 (1786) U.S. Supreme Court HOLLINGSWORTH v. LEIPER, 1 U.S. 161 (1786) 1 U.S. 161 (Dall.) Hollingsworth v. Leiper Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County March Term, 1786 A rule had been obtained to show cause, why the report of Referrees should not be set aside, on the ground of their having heard a witness interested in the event of the suit; and, after argument, THE PRESIDENT pronounced the decision of the Court. SHIPPEN, President. The determination of causes by referrees under a rule of Court, has become so frequent and useful a practice, and is attended with so many advantages towards the summary administration of justice, that is would be extremely mischievous to shake their reports by captious objections, where the substantial rules of justice are not violated. The merits of the cause are solely submitted to them, as judges of the parties own chusing, and are not afterward; enquired into by the Court, unless there should appear ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »