Us Supreme Court Court January 1806 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.
Simonds Vs. Union Ins Co
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1806
SIMONDS v. UNION INS CO - 4 U.S. 417 (1806) U.S. Supreme Court SIMONDS v. UNION INS CO, 4 U.S. 417 (1806) 4 U.S. 417 (Dall.) Symonds v. The Union Insurance Company. Circuit Court, Pennsylvania District. April Term, 1806 THE plaintiff had effected, at the office of the defendants, three policies of insurance, dated the 12th of September 1803. The first on the schooner Diana, Nicholas master, valued at 4500 dollars; the second on the freight of the schooner, valued at 1500 dollars, and the third on her cargo, valued at 4000 dollars; on a voyage, 'at and from New-York to Cape Francois with liberty to proceed to another port, should Cape Francois be blockaded, and the vessel prevented entering that port, from that, or any other, cause, and at and from thence back to New-York.' The order for the insurance, declared 'that the assured is not to abandon, if she cannot enter the Cape from blockade or other cause, but liberty is given to proceed to some other port.' The schooner saile...
Bender Vs. Fromberger
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1806
BENDER v. FROMBERGER - 4 U.S. 441 (1806) U.S. Supreme Court BENDER v. FROMBERGER, 4 U.S. 441 (1806) 4 U.S. 441 (Dall.) BENDER v. FROMBERGER Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. December Term, 1806 THE case now came before the court, on the point submitted by the verdict; and this turned upon the question, whether in an action of covenant, founded upon a deed, in which the grantor covenants, that he has a good title to the land conveyed, the grantee, being evicted, is entitled to recover the price of the premises Page 4 U.S. 441, 442 at the date of the deed, or the improved value, at the time of the eviction? For the plaintiff, it was contended, that the measure of damages, on all covenants, is the amount of the loss actually sustained, and though it would seem from the old books, that, in cases of warranty, the recovery is to be according to the value of the land, at the time of the warranty; it was a recovery, in those cases, of land only, and not (as in this case) of money for ...
U S Vs. Mcgill
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1806
U S v. MCGILL - 4 U.S. 426 (1806) U.S. Supreme Court U S v. MCGILL, 4 U.S. 426 (1806) 4 U.S. 426 (Dall.) The United States v. James McGill. Circuit Court, Pennsylvania District. October Term, 1806 THIS was an indictment for the murder of Richard Budden, containing three counts. 1st. Charging the murder to have been committed on the high seas. 2d. Charging it to have been committed in the haven of Cape Francois. 3d. Charging the mortal stroke to have been given on the high seas, and the death to have happened, on shore, at Cape Francois. The indictment was founded on the 8th section of the penal law (1 vol. 102.) which provides 'that if any person, or persons, shall commit upon the high seas, or in any river, haven, bason, or bay, out of the jurisdiction of any particular state, murder, &c.; every such offender shall be deemed, taken, and adjudged to be a pirate and felon, and being thereof convicted, shall suffer death.' Upon the evidence it appeared, that the prisoner ...
Silsby Vs. Young
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1806
Silsby v. Young - 7 U.S. 249 (1806) U.S. Supreme Court Silsby v. Young, 7 U.S. 3 Cranch 249 249 (1806) Silsby v. Young 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 249 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA Syllabus D. devised all his estate to his executor in trust to convert the same into money, and after payment of debts to invest the surplus in the funds or put it out on interest. He then bequeaths 1,500 to E. to be paid at the age of twenty-one, subject to the subsequent provisos, and directs 1,000 to be set apart and the interest to be paid to S. during her life, and after bequeathing other pecuniary legacies, says, "provided that in case the personal estate and the produce arising from the real estate which I shall die seized and possessed of shall not be sufficient to answer the said annuities and legacies hereinbefore by me bequeathed, then and in such case I direct that the said annuities and legacies so by me bequeathed shall not abate in proportion, but the whole of such defi...
Morgan Vs. Insurance Co of North America
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1806
MORGAN v. INSURANCE CO OF NORTH AMERICA - 4 U.S. 455 (1806) U.S. Supreme Court MORGAN v. INSURANCE CO OF NORTH AMERICA, 4 U.S. 455 (1806) 4 U.S. 455 (Dall.) Morgan et al. v. The Insurance Company of North-America. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. December Term, 1806 THIS was an action upon a policy of insurance, on the freight of the brig Amazon, valued at 3,500 dollars, upon a voyage from Philadelphia to Surinam. The policy contained a warranty of American property, and the usual clause against illicit trade. On the trial of the cause, before the chief justice, at Nisi Prius, in July 1806, it appeared that upon the 7th of August 1799, when Surinam was in possession of the Dutc , the vessel sailed on the voyage insured, and arrived at the river of Surinam, on the 17th of September following; that the brig was detained at the entrance of the river, by the commander of the British fort, who informed the captain, that the colony of Surinam had been in possession of the British fo...
Harris Vs. Johnston
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1806
Harris v. Johnston - 7 U.S. 311 (1806) U.S. Supreme Court Harris v. Johnston, 7 U.S. 3 Cranch 311 311 (1806) Harris v. Johnston 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 311 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AT ALEXANDRIA Syllabus An action cannot be maintained on an original contract for goods sold and delivered by a person who has received a note as conditional payment, and has passed away that note. A bill of parcels delivered by I. stating the goods as bought of D. & I. is not conclusive evidence against I. that the goods were the joint property of D. & I., but the real circumstances may be explained by parol. If part of the goods were the sole property of D. and the residue the sole property of I,, and if I. had authority from D. to sell D.'s part, I. may maintain an action for whole, in his own name. An endorsee of a promissory note payable to order cannot, in Virginia, maintain an action at law upon the note against a remote endorser, but he may in equity. Error to the...
Mcferran Vs. Taylor and Massie
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1806
McFerran v. Taylor & Massie - 7 U.S. 270 (1806) U.S. Supreme Court McFerran v. Taylor & Massie, 7 U.S. 3 Cranch 270 270 (1806) McFerran v. Taylor & Massie 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 270 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF KENTUCKY Syllabus He who sells property on a description given by himself is bound in equity to make good that description, and if it be untrue in a material point, although the variance be occasioned by mistake, he must still remain liable for that variance. A finding by the jury which contradicts a fact admitted by the pleadings is to be disregarded. McFerran in his bill alleged that on 19 March, 1784, the defendant, Taylor, for a valuable consideration, executed his bond to the complainant for the conveyance of 200 acres of land out of 1,000 acres located by him on Hingston, or out of 5,000 acres which Taylor then had for location. The condition of the bond was as follows: "That if the said Richard Taylor, his heirs, &c.;, shall well and truly make or...
Ex Parte Vs. Burford
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1806
Ex Parte v. Burford - 7 U.S. 448 (1806) U.S. Supreme Court Ex Parte v. Burford, 7 U.S. 3 Cranch 448 448 (1806) Ex Parte v. Burford 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 448 Syllabus In this case it was decided that a warrant of commitment by two justices of the peace of the County of Alexandria must state some good cause certain, supported by oath. The discharge of the prisoner from confinement, the warrant being illegal, does not prevent the justices proceeding de novo, if the prisoner is really a person of ill fame, and who ought to find sureties for his good behavior. John Arkins Burford, a prisoner confined in the jail of the County of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia, petitioned this court for a habeas corpus, to inquire into the cause of his commitment, alleging that he was confined under and by color of process of the United States, and praying for a certiorari to the clerk of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, for the County of Washington to certify the record by which...
Wise Vs. Withers
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1806
Wise v. Withers - 7 U.S. 331 (1806) U.S. Supreme Court Wise v. Withers, 7 U.S. 3 Cranch 331 331 (1806) Wise v. Withers 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 331 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus A justice of the peace in the District of Columbia is an officer of the government of the United States, and is exempt from militia duty. The court martial has not exclusive jurisdiction of that question, and its sentence is not conclusive. Trespass lies against a collector of militia fines who distrains for a fine imposed by a court martial upon a person not liable to be enrolled in the militia, the court martial having no jurisdiction in such cases. Page 7 U. S. 332 Error to the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia in an action of trespass vi et armis for entering the plaintiff's house and taking away his goods. The defendant justified as collector of militia fines. The plaintiff replied that at the time when, &c.;, he was one of the United States justices of...
U S Vs. Johns
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1806
U S v. JOHNS - 4 U.S. 412 (1806) U.S. Supreme Court U S v. JOHNS, 4 U.S. 412 (1806) 4 U.S. 412 (Dall.) The United States v. Richard Johns. Circuit Court, Pennsylvania District. April Term, 1806 THIS was a prosecution, on the 2d section of the act of congress, of the 26th of March 1804, (7 vol. 126.) which is expressed in these words: ' Be it further enacted, That if any person shall, on the high seas, wilfully and corruptly cast away, burn, or otherwise destroy, any ship or vessel of which he is owner, in part or in whole, or in anywise direct or procure the same to be done, with intent or design to prejudice any person or persons that hath underwritten, or shall underwrite, any policy or policies of insurance thereon, or if any merchant or merchants that shall load goods thereon, or of any other owner or owners of such ship or vessel, the person or persons offending therein, being thereof lawfully convicted, shall be deemed and adjudged guilty of felony, and shall suffer dea...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »