Us Supreme Court Court January 1817 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.
Mciver Vs. Ragan
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1817
McIver v. Ragan - 15 U.S. 25 (1817) U.S. Supreme Court McIver v. Ragan, 15 U.S. 2 Wheat. 25 25 (1817) McIver v. Ragan 15 U.S. (2 Wheat.) 25 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF WEST TENNESSEE Syllabus Where the plaintiffs in ejectment claimed under a grant from the State of North Carolina comprehending the lands for which the suit was brought, and the defendants claimed under a junior patent and a possession of seven years, which by the statutes of that state and Tennessee, constitutes a bar to the action if the possession be under color of title, to repel this defense, the plaintiffs proved that no corner or course of the grant under which they claimed was marked except the beginning corner; that the beginning and nearly the whole land and all the corners except one were within the Cherokee Indian boundary, not having been ceded to the United States until the year 1806, within seven years from which time the suit was brought, but the land in the defendant's possessi...
The Mary
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1817
The Mary - 15 U.S. 123 (1817) U.S. Supreme Court The Mary, 15 U.S. 2 Wheat. 123 123 (1817) The Mary 15 U.S. (2 Wheat.) 123 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus Decided that where an enemy's vessel was captured by, a private armed vessel of the United States and subsequently dispossessed by, the force or terror of another, the prize was, under the circumstances of the case, adjudged to the first captor, with costs and damages. The British schooner Mary, whereof Charles Thomas, Jr., a British subject, domiciled at St. Johns, New Brunswick, was late owner and master, sailed under convoy from St. Johns, New Brunswick, bound to Castine, then in the military occupation of the British, laden with a cargo, the growth, produce, and manufacture of British possessions, shipped by British merchants domiciled in St. Johns, N.B., to merchants resident in Castine. The schooner Mary was captured by the private armed schooner Cadet between Duck Islan...
Coolidge Vs. Payson
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1817
Coolidge v. Payson - 15 U.S. 66 (1817) U.S. Supreme Court Coolidge v. Payson, 15 U.S. 66 (1817) Coolidge v. Payson 15 U.S. 66 Syllabus A letter, written within a reasonable time before or after the date of a bill of exchange, describing it in terms not to be mistaken, and promising to accept it is, if shown to the person who afterwards takes the bill on the credit of the letter, a virtual acceptance binding the person who makes the promise. The prevailing inducement for considering a promise to accept as an acceptance is that thereby credit is given to the bill. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court. This suit was instituted by Payson & Co. as endorsers of a bill of exchange drawn by Cornthwaite & Cary, payable to the order of John Randall, against Coolidge & Co. as the acceptors. At the trial, the holders of the bill, on which the name of John Randall was endorsed, offered, for the purpose of proving the endorsement, an affidavit made by ...
Johnson Vs. Pennel's Heirs
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1817
Johnson v. Pennel's Heirs - 15 U.S. 206 (1817) U.S. Supreme Court Johnson v. Pennel's Heirs, 15 U.S. 2 Wheat. 206 206 (1817) Johnson v. Pennel's Heirs 15 U.S. (2 Wheat.) 206 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY Syllabus It is essential to the validity of an entry that the land intended to be appropriated should be so described as to give notice of the appropriation to subsequent locators. In taking the distance from one point to another on a large river, the measurement is to be with its meanders, and not in a direct line. In ascertaining a place to be found by its distance from another place, the vague words "about" or "nearly" and the like are to be rejected if there are no other words rendering it necessary to retain them, and the distance mentioned is to be taken positively. Entries made in a wilderness, most generally referring to some prominent and notorious natural object which may direct the attention to the neighborhood in which the land is place...
The William King
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1817
The William King - 15 U.S. 148 (1817) U.S. Supreme Court The William King, 15 U.S. 2 Wheat. 148 148 (1817) The William King 15 U.S. (2 Wheat.) 148 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus Under the Embargo Act of 22 December, 1807, the words an "embargo shall be laid" not only imposed upon the public officers the duty of preventing the departure of registered or sea letter vessels on a foreign voyage, but consequently rendered them liable to forfeiture under the Supplementary Act of 9 January, 1808. In such case, if the vessel be actually and bona fide carried by force to a foreign port, she is not liable to forfeiture. The Court being of opinion under the facts and circumstances of the case that the capture under which it was alleged the vessel was compelled to go to a foreign port was fictitious and collusive, the decree of condemnation in the court below was affirmed. A libel was filed against this vessel in the District Court of New York, Ma...
Liter Vs. Green
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1817
Liter v. Green - 15 U.S. 306 (1817) U.S. Supreme Court Liter v. Green, 15 U.S. 306 (1817) Liter v. Green 15 U.S. 306 Syllabus In a writ of right, brought under the statute of Kentucky, where the demandant described his land by metes and bounds, and counted against the tenants jointly, it was held that this was matter pleadable in abatement only, and that by pleading in bar, the tenants admitted their joint seizin, and lost the opportunity of pleading a several tenancy. The tenants could not in this case severally plead, in addition to the mise or general issue, that neither the plaintiff nor his ancestor nor any other under or from whom he derived his title to the demanded premises was ever actually seized or possessed thereof or of any part thereof, because it amounted to the general issue, and was an application to the mere discretion of the court, which is not examinable upon a writ of error. Quaere whether the tenants could plead the mise severally as to the several ten...
United States Vs. Tenbrock
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1817
United States v. Tenbrock - 15 U.S. 248 (1817) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Tenbrock, 15 U.S. 2 Wheat. 248 248 (1817) United States v. Tenbrock 15 U.S. (2 Wheat.) 248 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA Syllabus The Act of Congress of 24 July 1813, imposing a duty, according to the capacity of the still, on all stills employed in distilling spirits from domestic or foreign materials, and inflicting a penalty of one hundred dollars and double duties for using any still or stills or other implements in distilling spirituous liquors without first obtaining a license, as required by the act, does not extend to the rectification or purification of spirits already distilled. Page 15 U. S. 249 This was an action of debt commenced in the District Court in Pennsylvania, by the United States against the defendant in error to recover a penalty alleged to have been incurred for using a still and distilling spirituous liquors without having a license theref...
Colson Vs. Thompson
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1817
Colson v. Thompson - 15 U.S. 336 (1817) U.S. Supreme Court Colson v. Thompson, 15 U.S. 2 Wheat. 336 336 (1817) Colson v. Thompson 15 U.S. (2 Wheat.) 336 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY Syllabus Bid for the specific execution of an alleged agreement to convey to the plaintiff one-third of a certain tract of land in Kentucky belonging to the defendant as a compensation for locating and surveying the same. Bill dismissed. In order to obtain a specific performance of a contract, its terms should be so precise as that neither party can reasonably misunderstand them. If the contract be vague and uncertain or the evidence to establish it be insufficient, a court of equity will not enforce it, but will leave the party to his legal remedy. The plaintiff, who seeks for the specific performance of an agreement, must show that he has performed or offered to perform, on his part the acts which formed the consideration of the alleged undertaking on the part of t...
Lenox Vs. Roberts
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1817
Lenox v. Roberts - 15 U.S. 373 (1817) U.S. Supreme Court Lenox v. Roberts, 15 U.S. 2 Wheat. 373 373 (1817) Lenox v. Roberts 15 U.S. (2 Wheat.) 373 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ALEXANDRIA Syllabus Where all the property of the late Bank of the United States had been assigned by a general assignment in trust to assignees for the purpose of liquidating its affairs, quaere whether any action at law could be maintained by the assignees, on certain promissory notes endorsed to and the property of the bank which had not been specially assigned nor endorsed to the assignees. However this may be, it is clear that a suit in equity might be maintained by the assignees against the parties to the notes. A demand of payment of a promissory note must be made of the maker on the last day of grace, and where the endorser resides in a different place, notice of the default of the maker should be put into the post office early enough to be sent by ...
Otis Vs. Walter
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1817
Otis v. Walter - 15 U.S. 18 (1817) U.S. Supreme Court Otis v. Walter, 15 U.S. 2 Wheat. 18 18 (1817) Otis v. Walter 15 U.S. (2 Wheat.) 18 I N ERROR TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus In seizures under the embargo laws, the law itself is a sufficient justification to the seizing officer where the discharge of duty is the real motive, and not the pretext for detention, and it is not necessary to show probable cause. But the Embargo Act of 25 April, 1808, related only to vessels ostensibly bound to some port in the United States, and a seizure after the termination of the voyage is unjustifiable, and no further detention of the cargo is lawful than what is necessarily dependent on the detention of the vessel. It is not indispensable to the termination of a voyage that the vessel should arrive at the terminus of her original destination, but it may be produced by stranding, stress of weather, or any other cause inducing her to enter anothe...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »