Us Supreme Court Court January 1812 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.
Russell Vs. Clark's Executors
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1812
Russell v. Clark's Executors - 11 U.S. 69 (1812) U.S. Supreme Court Russell v. Clark's Executors, 11 U.S. 7 Cranch 69 69 (1812) Russell v. Clark's Executors 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 69 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND Syllabus The construction of a letter of credit or of guarantee must be the same in a court of equity as in a court of law, and any facts which might be introduced into one court to explain the transaction may be introduced into the other. On the question of fraud also, the remedy at law is complete. Where the only ground of equitable jurisdiction is the discovery of facts solely within the knowledge of the defendant, and the defendant by his answer discloses no such facts, and the plaintiff supports his claim by evidence in his own possession, unaided by the confessions of the defendant, the plaintiff should be dismissed from the court of chancery and permitted to assert his rights in a court of law. To charge one person with the debt of ...
The James Wells Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1812
The James Wells v. United States - 11 U.S. 22 (1812) U.S. Supreme Court The James Wells v. United States, 11 U.S. 7 Cranch 22 22 (1812) The James Wells v. United States 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 22 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CONNECTICUT Syllabus It was decided: In cases of admiralty jurisdiction, new evidence will be admitted in this Court, and for that purpose a commission may issue. The evidence of that necessity which will excuse a violation of the embargo laws must be very clear and positive. This was an appeal from a sentence of the circuit court which affirmed that of the District Court of Connecticut restoring the cargo but condemning the brig James Wells, an American registered vessel, for a violation of the 3d section of the Embargo Act of January 9, 1808, in making a voyage to St. Bartholomews under a clearance for the port of St. Mary's, in the State of Georgia. The excuse suggested by the claimant of the vessel was stress of weather. He stated in his claim and ...
United States Vs. Goodwin
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1812
United States v. Goodwin - 11 U.S. 108 (1812) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Goodwin, 11 U.S. 7 Cranch 108 108 (1812) United States v. Goodwin 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 108 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus No writ of error lies to the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse the judgment of a circuit court in a civil action which has been carried up to the circuit court from the district court by writ of error. This was an action of debt brought originally in the District Court for the District of Pennsylvania by the United States against John Goodwin for $15,000, as a penalty for not entering goods agreeably to the prime cost, at the place of exportation, with intent to defraud the revenue. The judgment of the district court, which was in favor of the United States, was, upon a writ of error, reversed in the circuit court, and thereupon the United States sued out the present writ of error to this Court. A doubt having been suggested whe...
Freeland Vs. Heron, Lenox and Company
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1812
Freeland v. Heron, Lenox & Company - 11 U.S. 147 (1812) U.S. Supreme Court Freeland v. Heron, Lenox & Company, 11 U.S. 7 Cranch 147 147 (1812) Freeland v. Heron, Lenox & Company 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 147 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Syllabus An account current sent by a foreign merchant to a merchant in this country, and not objected to for two years, is deemed an account stated, and throws the burden of proof upon him who received and kept it without objection. DUVALL, JUSTICE, delivered the opinion of the Court as follows: Page 11 U. S. 148 The record presents the following state of facts: A bill in equity was filed by Heron, Lenox & Company against Archibald Freeland, the appellant, in the circuit court in the month of December, 1798. It states that the company consisted of Nathaniel Heron, a subject of Great Britain, Samuel Lenox, also a subject of Great Britain, and James Freeland and William Gillin. That articles of co-partn...
Wilson Vs. Koontz
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1812
Wilson v. Koontz - 11 U.S. 202 (1812) U.S. Supreme Court Wilson v. Koontz, 11 U.S. 7 Cranch 202 202 (1812) Wilson v. Koontz 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 202 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus A defendant who removes from one county to another in Virginia is not thereby prevented from pleading the act of limitations unless the plaintiff has been, by such removal, actually defeated or obstructed in bringing or maintaining his action. This was an appeal from the decree of the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia which dismissed the complainant's bill in equity. Wilson filed a bill in equity in the nature of an attachment in chancery against Koontz, surviving partner of Koontz & Ober, as principal debtor, and Thomas Irvine and Joseph Mandeville as garnishees. It Page 11 U. S. 203 stated that Koontz, a resident of Virginia, as surviving partner of the firm of Koontz & Ober, was indebted to the plaintiff by note, in the sum of $1,261, and had...
Welch Vs. Lindo
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1812
Welch v. Lindo - 11 U.S. 159 (1812) U.S. Supreme Court Welch v. Lindo, 11 U.S. 7 Cranch 159 159 (1812) Welch v. Lindo 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 159 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AT ALEXANDRIA Syllabus The mere possession of a promissory note by an endorsee who had endorsed it to another while the assignment remained is not sufficient evidence of his right of action against his endorser, without a reassignment or receipt from the last endorsee. An endorsement "without recourse" is not evidence of money had and received by the endorser to the use of the endorsee. Page 11 U. S. 160 Welch brought an action of assumpsit against Lindo upon his endorsement of a promissory note. The declaration contained two counts. The 1st count stated that one John Kercheval, on 25 August, 1796, made and delivered a promissory note to Lindo, payable to his order on demand, for $246 for value received. That Lindo, on 24 January, 1800, endorsed it to Welch (the plaintiff) in thes...
Wallen Vs. Williams
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1812
Wallen v. Williams - 11 U.S. 278 (1812) U.S. Supreme Court Wallen v. Williams, 11 U.S. 7 Cranch 278 278 (1812) Wallen v. Williams 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 278 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE Syllabus Error to the Circuit Court of the district of Tennessee to reverse a decree in chancery. The court below had issued a writ of habere facias possessionem to enforce its decree. The writ of error was too late to be a supersedeas to the decree. Jones, for the Plaintiff in error, now moved to quash the writ of habere facias as irregular, and contended that the Court below, sitting as a Court of Chancery under the laws of Tennessee, could only enforce by execution decrees for the payment of money, and cited Tennessee Laws, ed. 1807, p. 158, § 2. Page 11 U. S. 279 MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL. The writ of error is to the original decree, which did not award this writ of habere facias. It was awarded by a subsequent order of the Court, to which no writ of ...
Conway's Executors and Devisees Vs. Alexander
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1812
Conway's Executors and Devisees v. Alexander - 11 U.S. 218 (1812) U.S. Supreme Court Conway's Executors and Devisees v. Alexander, 11 U.S. 218 (1812) Conway's Executors and Devisees v. Alexander 11 U.S. 218 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ALEXANDRIA Syllabus If A advance money, to B. and B. thereupon convey land to trustees in trust to convey the same to A. in fee in case B. should fail to repay the money and interest on a certain day and if B. fail to repay the money on the day limited, and thereupon the trustees convey the land to A., B. has no equity of redemption. Page 11 U. S. 219 Walter S. Alexander, the appellee, son and residuary devisee of Robert Alexander, deceased, filed his bill in equity against the executors and devisees of Richard Conway, deceased, to be permitted to redeem a certain tract of land which his father, Robert Alexander, had, in the year 1788, conveyed to certain trustees by a deed which the complainant c...
Fitzsommons Vs. Ogden
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1812
Fitzsommons v. Ogden - 11 U.S. 2 (1812) U.S. Supreme Court Fitzsommons v. Ogden, 11 U.S. 7 Cranch 2 2 (1812) Fitzsommons v. Ogden 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 2 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus He who has equal equity may acquire the legal estate, if he can, so as to protect his equity. Between merely equitable claimants, each having equal equity, he who has the precedence in time has the advantage in right. This was an appeal from the decree of the Circuit Court for the District of New York, sitting in chancery, entered by consent pro forma to bring the case before this Court. The material facts as stated by WASHINGTON, JUSTICE, in delivering the opinion of the Court were as follows: For the purpose of securing certain of his creditors, Robert Morris, on 14 February, 1798, conveyed to the appellants, as trustees for those creditors, a certain tract of land lying in Ontario County in the State of New York, containing 500,000 acres, described by ce...
United States Vs. Tyler
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1812
United States v. Tyler - 11 U.S. 285 (1812) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Tyler, 11 U.S. 7 Cranch 285 285 (1812) United States v. Tyler 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 285 Syllabus Upon an indictment for putting goods on board a carriage with intent to transport them out of the United States contrary to the Act of January 9, 1809, the punishment of which offense is a fine of four times the value of the goods, it is not necessary that the jury should find the value of the goods. LIVINGSTON, J. delivered the opinion of the Court as follows: The defendant was indicted under the act to enforce the embargo laws passed 9 January, 1809, for loading on carriages within the District of Vermont nineteen barrels of pearl ashes with intent to transport the same without the United States, to-wit into the Province of Canada. On a plea of not guilty, the jury returned the following written verdict, which was recorded. "The jury find that the said John Tyler is guilty of the charge alleged against...