Us Supreme Court Court January 1787 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.
Pollard Vs. Shaffer
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1787
POLLARD v. SHAFFER - 1 U.S. 210 (1787) U.S. Supreme Court POLLARD v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 210 (1787) 1 U.S. 210 (Dall.) Pollard v. Shaaffer Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1787 Covenant. The Plaintiff, and one Martha Green (now deceased) made a lease by indenture, dated the 1st of March 1773, of a Sugar House &c.; to John William Hoffman and his assigns for five years at L. 70. per ann. payable quarterly. The Lessee covenanted for himself, his executors, administrators, and assigns, to keep the demised premisses in good repair, and to deliver them up to the Plaintiff, at the end of the term, in such good repair &c.; John William Hoffman assigned the lease to the Defendant, who entered into the premisses. The breach alledged in this action was, that the Defendant had not paid L. 35. rent in arrear for the last half year, nor delivered up the premisses at the end of the term, to wit, the 1st of March 1778, in good order and repair; but that the roof, window- sh...
Eastwick Vs. Hugg
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1787
EASTWICK v. HUGG - 1 U.S. 222 (1787) U.S. Supreme Court EASTWICK v. HUGG, 1 U.S. 222 (1787) 1 U.S. 222 (Dall.) Eastwick v. Hugg Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County September Term, 1787 This was an action for money had and received &c.; The Defendant, being Sheriff of Gloucester county in New Jersey, received a sum of money for the Plaintiff, which he lent, with her consent, upon a mortgage of lands in that state. The mortgagor, from time to time, paid the interest to Hugg, and, finally, in the year 1778, paid the whole principal and interest to him in depreciated paper money. It did not appear that Hugg had any express authority from the Plaintiff to receive this payment of the principal from the mortgagor, and she afterwards refused to accept the continental money, insisting that she was entitled to recover the full sum in specie; for which, accordingly, the present action was brought. Upon the trial of the cause, the Court, in their charge, left it to the Jury, t...
January Vs. Goodman
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1787
JANUARY v. GOODMAN - 1 U.S. 208 (1787) U.S. Supreme Court JANUARY v. GOODMAN, 1 U.S. 208 (1787) 1 U.S. 208 (Dall.) January Assignee v. Goodman Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County June Term, 1787 The President, after argument and consideration, delivered the judgment of the Court in this cause, upon a point reserved at the trial. Shippen, President. This is an action on the case, brought upon a writing said to be a promissory note, and declared upon as such, The form of it is not the usual form of a promissory note; it runs thus; 'I promise and oblige myself and my heirs to pay to January and his Assigns,' it concludes with the words 'as witness my hand and seal;' and it is actually sealed. Two witnesses subscribe under the words 'given in presence of us.' On the trial, the subscribing witnesses were not called, nor any evidence given of their death, or absence; but evidence was offered of the hand writing of the Defendant, who subscribed the instrument, which was pe...
Doane'S Adm'Rs vs. Penhallow
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1787
DOANE'S ADM'RS v. PENHALLOW - 1 U.S. 218 (1787) U.S. Supreme Court DOANE'S ADM'RS v. PENHALLOW, 1 U.S. 218 (1787) 1 U.S. 218 (Dall.) Doane's Administrators v. Penhallow et al. Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County September Term, 1787 This was a foreign attachment, in which, and in two others against the same Defendants for the same cause, a motion was made to quash the writs. After argument, the President recapitulated the grounds of the motion, and delivered the opinion of the court as follows: Shippen, President. On the hearing of this motion the Plaintiffs were called upon to shew their cause of action: They shew that on the 17th of September 1783, a certain cause, wherein Elisha Doane was claimant and appellant, against the Brigantine Susannah and her cargo, and John Penhallow and others libellants and appellees, was tried in the Court of Appeals in cases of capture established by Congress in the city of Philadelphia. And that it was there finally adjudged and decr...
Musgrove Vs. Gibbs
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1787
MUSGROVE v. GIBBS - 1 U.S. 216 (1787) U.S. Supreme Court MUSGROVE v. GIBBS, 1 U.S. 216 (1787) 1 U.S. 216 (Dall.) Musgrove Qui tam etc. v. Gibbs Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1787 This was an action qui tam &c.; on the Act of Assembly against Usury; and, in the course of the trial, the Court resolved the following points: First. Richardson, through the mediation of Shoemaker, borrowed 800 Dollars of the Defendant, and gave his note for 840 Dollars payable in one month. There was no talk about premium at the time of the loan; but it was understood by the witnesses, that the Borrower was to pay at the rate of 5 per cent.'per month for the money. At the end of the month, Richardson paid L.168. on account of his note, and gave a new note, drawn in favor of, and indorsed by, Shoemaker, for the ballance. He discharged the amount of this last note at different times; but it was never given up by the Defendant. Resolved, that this was an illegal loaning of money, not...
Gerard Vs. La Coste
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1787
GERARD v. LA COSTE - 1 U.S. 194 (1787) U.S. Supreme Court GERARD v. LA COSTE, 1 U.S. 194 (1787) 1 U.S. 194 (Dall.) Gerard v. La Coste et al. Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County June Term, 1787 This case came before the Court on a special verdict, and, after argument, the following judgment was pronounced by the President. Shippen, President. This action is brought against the acceptors of an inland Bill of Exchange, made payable to Bass and Soyer and indorsed by them, after the Acceptance, to the Plaintiff for a valuable consideration. The Bill is payable to Bass and Soyer, without the usual words 'or order' 'or assigns', or any other words of negotiability. The question is, whether this is a Bill of Exchange, which, by the law merchant, is indorsable over, so as to enable the indorsee to maintain an action on it against the acceptors, in his own name. The Court has taken some time to consider the case, not so much from their own doubts, as because it is said emin...
Busby Vs. Busby
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1787
BUSBY v. BUSBY - 1 U.S. 226 (1787) U.S. Supreme Court BUSBY v. BUSBY, 1 U.S. 226 (1787) 1 U.S. 226 (Dall.) Busby v. Busby Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County September Term, 1787 THIS was a case stated for the opinion of the Court. It was argued on the 11th instant by Sergeant on the one side; and Lewis and Levy on the other. This day the President repeated the case, and delivered the opinion of the Court as follows. SHIPPEN, President. The question arises upon the will of Thomas Busby, whether the devise to his wife of a certain piece of land therein mentioned, passes a fee simple, or an estate for life only. There are no words of limitation in the devise; but, it is contended, that in the introductory part of the will, and by the whole will taken together, it was the clear intention of the testator to pass a fee. The intention of the testator is said to be the pole star to guide the construction of wills. But there are two qualifications to this rule; 1st That this...
Kuhn Vs. Trimer
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1787
KUHN v. TRIMER - 1 U.S. 225 (1787) U.S. Supreme Court KUHN v. TRIMER, 1 U.S. 225 (1787) 1 U.S. 225 (Dall.) Kuhn v. Primer Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County September Term, 1787 The Plaintiff had become bound to one Splecit in the payment of a certain sum of money; and, after the bond was due, he obtained a disch rge under the insolvent laws. Subsequent to his discharge, the Defendant bought sundry goods of him, and when the price was demanded, tendered Splecit's bond in payment, an assignment of which he had purchased for that purpose. The Plaintiff, refusing to accept it, brought this action, and on the trial, the Defendant offered to give the bond in evidence, by way of Sett off; in consquence of which the ballance would have been turned in his favour. Sergeant, for the Plaintiff, opposed the admission of the bond in evidence, and cited Bull. L. N. P. 179. Levy contended that the evidence ought to be allowed, and referred to the same book page 170. BY THE COUR...
Phile Vs. the Anna
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1787
PHILE v. THE ANNA - 1 U.S. 197 (1787) U.S. Supreme Court PHILE v. THE ANNA, 1 U.S. 197 (1787) 1 U.S. 197 (Dall.) Phile qui tam v. The Ship Anna Court of Common Pleas, of Philadelphia County. June Term, 1787 This was an information filed by the Naval Officer of the port of Philadelphia, against the ship Anna, lately arrived from Bristol upon the discovery of Peter Cooper, that forty two hampers of porter, part of her cargo, had been landed, without being first duly entered at the Collector's office, conformably to a law of this State, passed the fifteenth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, which enacts, among other things, 'That every vessel or boat, from which any goods, wares, or merchandize, shall be unladed before due entry thereof, at the office of the Collector, of the port of Philadelphia, and every carriage into which any such goods shall be first put or loaded, after removal from such vessel or boat, together with the horse, horses, or cattle ...
Pringle vs. Black'S Ex'Rs
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1787
PRINGLE v. BLACK'S EX'RS - 2 U.S. 97 (1787) U.S. Supreme Court PRINGLE v. BLACK'S EX'RS, 2 U.S. 97 (1787) 2 U.S. 97 Pringle v. Black's Executors Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1787 Foreign attachment. A rule was obtained to shew cause why the foreign attachment should not be quashed: And the only question discussed on the argument was, whether a foreign attachment would lie against an executor? Page 2 U.S. 97, 98 After hearing Counsel on both sides, and taking time to advise upon the subject, The Court were of opinion, that the foreign attachment ought to be quashed; and, accordingly, made The rule absolute.* Footnotes [ Footnote * ] This minute was furnished by Mr. Coultburst, one of the plaintiff's Counsel; and though I cannot state at large the argument at the Bar, nor the reasons of the Judgment, the point appeared to deserve notice, even in this imperfect form. The authorities cited for the plaintiff were 2 Stra. 877. 3 Atk. 409. 2 Vez. 489. Priv. Lond....
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›