Us Supreme Court Court January 1824 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.
Gibbons Vs. Ogden
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1824
Gibbons v. Ogden - 22 U.S. 1 (1824) U.S. Supreme Court Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 1 1 (1824) Gibbons v. Ogden 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 APPEAL FROM THE COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF IMPEACHMENTS AND CORRECTION OF ERRORS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Syllabus The laws of New York granting to Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton the exclusive right of navigating the waters of that State with steamboats are in collision with the acts of Congress regulating the coasting trade, which, being made in pursuance of the Constitution, are supreme, and the State laws must yield to that supremacy, even though enacted in pursuance of powers acknowledged to remain in the States. The power of regulating commerce extends to the regulation of navigation. The power to regulate commerce extends to every species of commercial intercourse between the United States and foreign nations, and among the several States. It does not stop at the external boundary of a State. But it does not extend to a commerc...
The St. Jago De Cuba
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1824
The St. Jago de Cuba - 22 U.S. 409 (1824) U.S. Supreme Court The St. Jago de Cuba, 22 U.S. 409 (1824) The St. Jago de Cuba 22 U.S. 409 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MARYLAND Syllabus A question of fact under the slave trade acts. Condemnation pronounced. The claim of seamen for wages on a voyage undertaken in violation of the slave trade acts out of the proceeds of the forfeited vessel in the registry rejected. The claims of seamen for wages and of materialmen, for supplies where the parties were innocent of all knowledge of, or participation in the illegal voyage preferred to the claim of forfeiture on the part of the government. Materialmen have a lien which may be enforced by a proceeding in the admiralty in rem for necessaries or supplies furnished in a port to which the vessel does not belong. MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court. This vessel, with her lading found on board at the time of seizure, were libeled for an infraction of the laws proh...
Hughes Vs. Edwards
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1824
Hughes v. Edwards - 22 U.S. 489 (1824) U.S. Supreme Court Hughes v. Edwards, 22 U.S. 489 (1824) Hughes v. Edwards 22 U.S. 489 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF KENTUCKY Syllabus Where the mortgage deed contained a defeasance that the mortgagor should pay the debt according to the condition of a bond recited in the deed, by which it was payable on a day already past at the time of the execution of the deed, held that this circumstance did not avoid the mortgage deed in equity where it was to be considered as a conveyance absolute at law, but intended as a security merely, and to be treated in the same manner as an ordinary mortgage. A court of equity looks to the substantial object of the conveyance, and will consider an absolute deed as a mortgage wherever it is shown to have been intended merely as a security for the payment of a debt. So also the grantee in such deed may treat it as a mortgage, and acknowledging it to be such, may apply to a court of equity to foreclose t...
Baits Vs. Peters and Stebbins
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1824
Baits v. Peters & Stebbins - 22 U.S. 556 (1824) U.S. Supreme Court Baits v. Peters & Stebbins, 22 U.S. 556 (1824) Baits v. Peters & Stebbins 22 U.S. 556 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF ALABAMA Syllabus A covenant under seal to come to a settlement within a limited time and to pay the balance which might be found due is merely collateral, and cannot be pleaded as an extinguishment of a simple contract debt, the period within which the settlement was to be made having elapsed before the commencement of the suit, and the plea mot averring that any such settlement had been made. This was an action of assumpsit commenced in the court below in February, 1821, by Baits, the plaintiff in error, against Peters & Stebbins, the defendants in error, in which the plaintiff declared against the defendants, upon an agreement to account with him for goods delivered by him to the defendants for sale on commission and also for money had and received, and upon an insimul computa...
Ex Parte Wood and Brundage
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1824
Ex Parte Wood and Brundage - 22 U.S. 603 (1824) U.S. Supreme Court Ex Parte Wood and Brundage, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 603 603 (1824) Ex Parte Wood and Brundage 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 603 Syllabus Under the tenth section of the Patent Act of 21 February 1793, ch. 11, upon granting a rule by the judge of the district court upon the patentee, to show cause why process should not issue to repeal the patent, the patent is not repealed de facto by making the rule absolute, but the process to be awarded is in the nature of a scire facias at common law to the patentee to show cause why the patent should not repealed, with costs of suit, and upon the return of such process, duly served, the judge is to proceed to stay the cause upon the pleadings filed by the parties and the issue joined thereon. If the issue be an issue of fact, the trial thereof is to be by a jury; if an issue of law, by the court, as in other cases. In such a case, a record is to be made of the proceedings antecedent to th...
Meredith Vs. Pickett
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1824
Meredith v. Pickett - 22 U.S. 573 (1824) U.S. Supreme Court Meredith v. Pickett, 22 U.S. 573 (1824) Meredith v. Pickett 22 U.S. 573 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF KENTUCKY Syllabus Under the following entry, "H. R. enters two thousand acres in Kentucky by virtue of a warrant for military services performed by him in the last war, in the fork of the first fork of Licking, running up each fork for quantity," it appeared in evidence that at the first fork of Licking, the one fork was known and generally distinguished by the name of the south fork, and the other by the name of the Main Licking, or the Blue Lick Fork, and that some miles above this place the south fork again forked, held that the entry could not be satisfied with lands lying in the first fork. In such a case, the entry could not be explained and the survey supported by oral testimony. The notoriety and names of places may be shown by such testimony, but the words of an entry are to be construed by the court ...
Walton Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1824
Walton v. United States - 22 U.S. 651 (1824) U.S. Supreme Court Walton v. United States, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 651 651 (1824) Walton v. United States 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 651 Syllabus Under the second and fourth sections of the Act of 3 March 1797, ch. 368, a certified transcript from the books of the Treasury is evidence against the defendant, and no claim for any credit can be admitted at the trial which has not been presented to, and disallowed by the accounting officer of the Treasury (unless in the cases excepted by the act), although no proceedings have been had against the debtor, under the Act of 3f March 1795, ch. 289, by notification from the Treasury Department, requiring him to render to the auditor of the Treasury his accounts and vouchers for settlement. Quaere whether the Act of 3 March, 1795, ch. 289, is not virtually repealed by the Act of 3 March 1797, ch. 368? The official bond given by a receiver of public moneys, does not extinguish the simple contract debt aris...
Osborn Vs. Bank of the United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1824
Osborn v. Bank of the United States - 22 U.S. 738 (1824) U.S. Supreme Court Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 738 738 (1824) Osborn v. Bank of the United States 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF OHIO Syllabus The act of incorporation of the Bank of the United States gives the circuit courts of the United States jurisdiction of suits by and against the bank. This provision in the charter is warranted by the Third Article of the Constitution, which declares that "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority." The exemption of the State from suability, no objection to the proceedings against its officers, for executing an unconstitutional law. The decision of the Court in M'Culloch v. Maryland reviewed and confirmed. It is unnecessary for an attorney or solicitor who prosecutes a suit f...
The Merino
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1824
The Merino - 22 U.S. 391 (1824) U.S. Supreme Court The Merino, 22 U.S. 391 (1824) The Merino 22 U.S. 391 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF ALABAMA Syllabus The technical niceties of the common law are not regarded in admiralty proceedings. It is sufficient if an information set forth the offense so as clearly to bring it within the statute upon which the information is founded. It is not necessary that it should conclude contra formam statuti. The district court of the district where the seizure was made, and not where the offense was committed, has jurisdiction of proceedings in rem for an alleged forfeiture. If the seizure is made on the high seas, or within the territory of a foreign power, the jurisdiction is conferred on the court of the district where the property is carried and proceeded against. A municipal seizure, within the territory of a foreign power does not oust the jurisdiction of the- district court into whose district the property may be carried for adj...
Riggs Vs. Tayloe
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1824
Riggs v. Tayloe - 22 U.S. 483 (1824) U.S. Supreme Court Riggs v. Tayloe, 22 U.S. 483 (1824) Riggs v. Tayloe 22 U.S. 483 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus If a party intend to use a written instrument in evidence, he must produce the original, if in his possession. But if it is in the possession of the other party, who refuses to produce it after notice, or if the original is lost or destroyed, secondary evidence (being the best which the nature of the case allows) will be admitted. The party in such case may read a counterpart, or, if there is no counterpart, an examined copy, or, if no such copy, may give parol evidence of the contents. Where a writing has been voluntarily destroyed for fraudulent purposes or to create an excuse for its nonproduction, secondary evidence of its contents is not admissible. But where the destruction or loss (although voluntary) happens through mistake or accident, such evidence will be admitted. Page 22 U. S. 48...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »