Us Supreme Court Court January 1788 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.
Respublica Vs. Gordon
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1788
RESPUBLICA v. GORDON - 1 U.S. 233 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court RESPUBLICA v. GORDON, 1 U.S. 233 (1788) 1 U.S. 233 (Dall.) Respublica v. Gordon Supreme Court of Pennsylvania January Term, 1788 The Defendant was included in an act of proclamation issued during the late war, and not appearing within the time prescribed, was attainted of treason for adhering to the king of Great Britain, in consequence of which his estate was confiscated to the use of the commonwealth, but it had never been taken into possession. He returned, since the peace, to the state of Pennsylvania, and applied to the executive council, representing that he was a minor at the time of the attainder, and was forcibly prevented by his guardian from joining the American army; for which reasons he prayed a restoration of his estate. The council said, they were ready to grant him a pardon, but that they had it not in their power to restore his estate, which was a matter of legislative jurisdiction. Mr. Gordon, therefo...
Robertson Vs. Vogle
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1788
ROBERTSON v. VOGLE - 1 U.S. 252 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court ROBERTSON v. VOGLE, 1 U.S. 252 (1788) 1 U.S. 252 (Dall.) Robertson et al. v. Vogle Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County March Term, 1788 In this action the Plaintiffs declared, as Indorsees, upon a promissory note, against the Defendant as Indorsor, both the parties residing in the city of Philadelphia. It appeared, on the trial, that the note was drawn on the 10th April, 1786, and that it was protested for non payment on the 12th June, 1786; but on the 5th of July and on the 23rd of August following, the Plaintiffs received several partial payments from the drawer, without attempting to give notice of the protest to the indorsor, till after the last of those payments, when the drawer had become greatly embarrassed in his circumstances. Nor was there, indeed, any other evidence of notice, previously to the commencement of the action, to March term 1787, than that the Plaintiff's clerk had frequently called at the...
Poultney Vs. Ross
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1788
POULTNEY v. ROSS - 1 U.S. 238 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court POULTNEY v. ROSS, 1 U.S. 238 (1788) 1 U.S. 238 (Dall.) Poultney et. al. v. Ross Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County March Term, 1788 An appeal being entered from the judgment of Isaac Howell, Esquire, one of the Justices of the city of Philadelphia, &c.; on the trial of the cause, it appeared, that the Defendant went to the store of the Plaintiffs, and bought some articles, for which he afterwards paid; that, at the same time, he carried with him one Hawke, a joiner, who complained that he was frequently distressed in his trade, for want of a small credit; whereupon the Defendant told the Plaintiffs, that he did not think they would suffer by trusting him for two or three dollars, as he was an industrious and honest man, and that he (the Defendant) would see the money paid; that the Plaintiffs accordingly delivered to Hawke sundry articles at different times proper for his trade, as a carpenter and joiner, amo...
MifflIn Vs. Bingham
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1788
MIFFLIN v. BINGHAM - 1 U.S. 272 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court MIFFLIN v. BINGHAM, 1 U.S. 272 (1788) 1 U.S. 272 (Dall.) Mifflin et al. v. Bingham Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1788 The Plaintiffs, being disappointed in their evidence, voluntarily suffered a nonsuit. The following points, however, were resolved in the course of the trial, to illustrate which, it is necessary to relate the leading circumstances of the case. The Plaintiffs were Page 1 U.S. 272, 273 owners of a Privateer called the Rattlesnake, commanded by Captain M'Collough. This Privateer, having taken a valuable prize, during the late war with Great Britain, carried her into Martinique, where the Defendant resided as agent for the United States. At the time of her arrival, the Defendant was exceedingly embarrassed on account of certain pecuniary engagements, which he had entered into for the public; and, in order to relieve himself, he applied to captain M'Cullough for the use of the proceeds of the ...
Henry Vs. Risk
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1788
HENRY v. RISK - 1 U.S. 265 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court HENRY v. RISK, 1 U.S. 265 (1788) 1 U.S. 265 (Dall.) Henry Exor. v. Risk et al. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1788 This was an action brought for goods sold and delivered in the city of Philadelphia, the Plaintiff having charged interest upon his account, after allowing six months credit. Upon the trial it was admitted, that the net amount of the goods had been paid; and the counsel on both sides agreed, that, whether the interest ought to be allowed, was the only question in the cause. Ingersoll for the Plaintiff. A Jury may give interest, by way of damages, in an action for goods sold and delivered, when it is the agreement of the parties, when the Plaintiff has been vexatiously kept out of his money, or when it is the custom of the trade. Doug. 361. He then offered to prove by witnesses, that it was the custom of the trade in Philadelphia, to allow interest in cases similar to the present. But by M'Kean, Chi...
Tetter Vs. Rapesnyder
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1788
TETTER v. RAPESNYDER - 1 U.S. 293 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court TETTER v. RAPESNYDER, 1 U.S. 293 (1788) 1 U.S. 293 (Dall.) Tetter v. Rapesnyder Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County June Term, 1788 The parties, having consented to a reference, filed a written agreement appointing three persons, without saying or any two of them, to report; but the Clerk, in making out the rule, had so expressed it. The three referees met, though only two of them signed the report; and now Lawrence moved to set it aside, on account of this variance between the rule and the agreement of the parties, offering to examine a witness, who was present at the transaction, to shew that it was intended all the referees should concur. See Fitzg. 215. To this, Ingersoll, for the Plaintiff, objected; and said, that where parties have reduced their agreement to writing, particularly in the case of a record, nothing by way of addition or alteration was admissible. To prove a name meant, or a fraud committe...
Appeal of Brown
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1788
APPEAL OF BROWN - 1 U.S. 311 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court APPEAL OF BROWN, 1 U.S. 311 (1788) 1 U.S. 311 (Dall.) The Appeal of Brown Exor. of Edgar v. Circuit Court, Pennsylvania District Supreme Court of Pennsylvania July Term, 1788 This was an appeal from the Orphan's Court of Philadelphia county on the following case. Brown, having received L 400. on account of the estate of his Testator Edgar, paid it over (according to his uniform practice upon such occasions) to his Co-executor Dogherty. In Brown's books this money was charged, generally, as so much cash paid to Dogherty; but, in Dogherty's books, credit was given for it on account of the estate of Edgar. Dogherty became insolvent; and upon a settlement of Brown's administration, the Orphan's Court refused to allow him the L400. thus paid over to his Co-executor; but charged him with the principal sum, and interest from the time he received it, 'till the year 1776, (nine years) dropping the interest from that time 'till 178...
Richette Vs. Stewart
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1788
RICHETTE v. STEWART - 1 U.S. 317 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court RICHETTE v. STEWART, 1 U.S. 317 (1788) 1 U.S. 317 (Dall.) Richette v. Stewart et al. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania July Term, 1788 This was an action upon a Policy of Insurance on the Brig La Catiche; and the circumstances of the case, as far as they respect the decision of the Court, were these: The Brig having sustained considerable damage by a storm, the Captain, who was also a part owner, was compelled to deviate from his proper voyage, and, accordingly, bore away for Cape Francois. When he arrived there, on the 28th day of August, 1784, he delivered a proces verbal (which had been drawn up at sea, recently after the storm) into the Admiralty, in order to obtain a survey of the vessel; but this instrument was merely a relation of facts, unattested by the oath of the Captain, or of any of the Mariners, who had subscribed it as witnesses. A copy of it being afterwards, however, brought to Philadelphia, the Captain alo...
Butcher Vs. Coats
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1788
BUTCHER v. COATS - 1 U.S. 340 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court BUTCHER v. COATS, 1 U.S. 340 (1788) 1 U.S. 340 (Dall.) Butcher v. Coats Supreme Court of Pennsylvania July Term, 1788 Two witnesses, who had been duly served with a Subpoenia, were brought before the Court upon an attachment; but having satisfactorily proved, that they were so much indisposed, as to be utterly incapable of attending in obedience to the Subpoena, they were discharged. And, by the Court: As we do not find these persons in contempt, the costs of the attachment must abide the event of the suit.[ Butcher v. Coats 1 U.S. 340 (1788) ] ...
Respublica Vs. Shaffer
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1788
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER - 1 U.S. 236 (1788) U.S. Supreme Court RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788) 1 U.S. 236 (Dall.) Respublica v. Shaffer Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia February Sessions, 1788 After some conversation with the Grand Inquest, the Attorney General informed the court, that a list of eleven persons had been presented to him by the Foreman, with a request, that they might be qualified and sent to the jury, as witnesses upon a bill then depending before them. He stated that the list had been made out by the defendant's bail; that the persons named were intended to furnish testimony in favor of the party charged, upon facts with which the Inquest, of their own knowledge, were unacquainted; and he concluded with requesting, that the opinion of the court might be given upon this application. The Chief Justice, accordingly, addressed the Grand Jury to the following effect: M'Kean, Chief Justice. Were the proposed examination of witnesses, on the part...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »