Us Supreme Court Court January 1834 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.
Stratton Vs. Jarvis
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1834
Stratton v. Jarvis - 33 U.S. 4 (1834) U.S. Supreme Court Stratton v. Jarvis, 33 U.S. 8 Pet. 4 4 (1834) Stratton v. Jarvis 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 4 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Syllabus A libel was filed in the District Court of Maryland for a salvage service performed by the libellant, the master and owner of the sloop Liberty, and by his crew in saving certain goods and merchandises on board of the brig Spark, while aground on the bar at Thomas' Point in the Chesapeake Bay. The goods were owned by a number of persons in several and distinct rights, and a general claim and answer was interposed in behalf of all of them by Jarvis and Brown (the owners of a part of them), without naming who in particular the owners were or distinguishing their separate proprietary interests. This proceeding was doubtless irregular in both respects. Jarvis and Brown had no authority merely as co-shippers to interpose any claim for other shippers w...
Lee Vs. Lee
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1834
Lee v. Lee - 33 U.S. 44 (1834) U.S. Supreme Court Lee v. Lee, 33 U.S. 8 Pet. 44 44 (1834) Lee v. Lee 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 44 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON Syllabus The plaintiffs in error filed a petition for freedom in the Circuit Court of the United States for the County of Washington, and they proved that they were born in the State of Virginia as slaves of Richard B. Lee, now deceased, who moved with his family into the County of Washington in the District of Columbia about the year 1816, leaving the petitioners residing in Virginia as his slaves, until the year 1820, when the petitioner Barbara was removed to the county of Alexandria in the District of Columbia, where she was hired to Mrs. Muir, and continued with her thus hired for the period of one year. That the petitioner Sam was in like manner removed to the County of Alexandria and was hired to General Walter Jones for a period of about five or six months. That after the ex...
Watson Vs. Mercer
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1834
Watson v. Mercer - 33 U.S. 88 (1834) U.S. Supreme Court Watson v. Mercer, 33 U.S. 8 Pet. 88 88 (1834) Watson v. Mercer 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 88 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus In 1785, M. and wife executed a deed conveying certain lands of the wife to T., who immediately reconveyed them to M. The object. of the conveyance was to vest the lands of the wife in the husband. The deed of M. and wife to T. was not acknowledged according to the forms established by the law of Pennsylvania of 20 February, 1770, to pass the estates of femes covert, and after the death of the wife of M., the land was recovered in an ejectment from the heirs of M. in a suit instituted against him by the heirs of the wife of M. In 1826, after the recovery in ejectment, the Legislature of Pennsylvania passed an act the object of which was to cure all defective acknowledgments of this sort and to give them the same efficacy as if they had been originally taken in the proper fo...
Jackson Vs. Ashton
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1834
Jackson v. Ashton - 33 U.S. 148 (1834) U.S. Supreme Court Jackson v. Ashton, 33 U.S. 8 Pet. 148 148 (1834) Jackson v. Ashton 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 148 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE PENNSYLVANIA DISTRICT Syllabus The caption of the bill was in the following terms: "Thomas Jackson, a citizen of the State of Virginia, William Goodwin Jackson and Maria Congreve Jackson, citizens of Virginia, infants, by their father and next friend, the said Thomas Jackson v. Reverend William E. Ashton, a citizen of the State of Pennsylvania. In equity." In the body of the bill it is stated that "the defendant is of Philadelphia." By the Court: "The title or caption of the bill is no part of the bill, and does not remove the objection to the defects in the pleadings. The bill and proceedings should state the citizenship of the parties to give the court jurisdiction of the case." The only difficulty which could arise to the dismissal of the bill presents itself upon the...
Mandeville Vs. Burt
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1834
Mandeville v. Burt - 33 U.S. 256 (1834) U.S. Supreme Court Mandeville v. Burt, 33 U.S. 8 Pet. 256 256 (1834) Mandeville v. Burt 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 256 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN THE COUNTY OF ALEXANDRIA Syllabus In the Circuit Court of Alexandria in 1817, several suits were brought against sundry individuals who had associated to form a bank called the Merchants' Bank of Alexandria. The proceedings were regularly carried on in one of them, which the defendants appealed. On a hearing, the decree was reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity with certain principles prescribed in the decree of reversal. It appears that decrees were pronounced in all the cases, though regular proceedings were had only in the case of Romulus Riggs. Appeals were entered in these cases from the decrees of the court. Under such circumstances, the Court can only reverse the decree in each case for want of a bill. The wh...
Robinson Vs. Noble's Administrators
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1834
Robinson v. Noble's Administrators - 33 U.S. 181 (1834) U.S. Supreme Court Robinson v. Noble's Administrators, 33 U.S. 8 Pet. 181 181 (1834) Robinson v. Noble's Administrators 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 181 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus N. stipulated in certain articles of agreement to transport and deliver by the steamboat Paragon to R. a certain quantity of subsistence stores, supposed to amount to 3,700 barrels for the use of the United States, in consideration whereof R. agreed to pay to N., on the delivery of the stores at St. Louis at a certain rate per barrel, one-half in specie funds or their equivalent, and the other half to be paid in Cincinnati in the paper of banks current there at the period of the delivery of the stores at St. Louis. Under the agreement was the following memorandum. "It is understood that the payment to be made in Cincinnati is to be in the paper of the Miami Exporting Company or its eq...
Life and Fire Ins. Co. of New York Vs. Adams
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1834
Life & Fire Ins. Co. of New York v. Adams - 33 U.S. 306 (1834) U.S. Supreme Court Life & Fire Ins. Co. of New York v. Adams, 33 U.S. 8 Pet. 306 306 (1834) Life & Fire Ins. Co. of New York v. Adams 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 306 ON MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS FOR MANDAMUS TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court. At the last term of this Court, a rule was granted on the District Judge of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana in this, the same as in the preceding case of the same plaintiffs, against the Heirs of Nicholas Wilson, and as the principles involved in both cases are substantially the same, the court also direct that a mandamus be issued in this case commanding the district judge to sign the judgment agreeably to the prayer of the plaintiffs' counsel. On motion of plaintiff for a mandamus to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana. On considerat...
United States Vs. Hack
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1834
United States v. Hack - 33 U.S. 271 (1834) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Hack, 33 U.S. 8 Pet. 271 271 (1834) United States v. Hack 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 271 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Syllabus The priority of the United States does not extend so as to take the property of a partner from partnership effects to pay a separate debt, due by such partner to the United States, when the partnership effects are not sufficient to satisfy the creditors of the partnership. It is a rule too well settled to be now called in question that the interest of each partner in the partnership property is his share in the surplus after the partnership debts are paid, and that surplus only is liable for the separate debts of such partner. The United States instituted an action of assumpsit against the defendants in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland. The defendants pleaded nonassumpsit, and the case was submitted...
United States Vs. Jones
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1834
United States v. Jones - 33 U.S. 399 (1834) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Jones, 33 U.S. 8 Pet. 399 399 (1834) United States v. Jones 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 399 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus A contract was made for the delivery of rations for the use of the troops of the United States, "thirty, days' notice being given of the post or place where the rations may be wanted." In an action on a bond with sureties for a balance claimed to be due to the United States by the contractor, the United States introduced the testimony of a Mr. Abbott, and proved by him that at the time when contracts were made for the supply of the United States troops the contractors (as he believed) were then informed of the fixed posts within the limits of the contract, and the number of troops there stationed, and that rations were to be regularly supplied by such contractor according to the number of troops so statione...
Davis Vs. Packard
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1834
Davis v. Packard - 33 U.S. 312 (1834) U.S. Supreme Court Davis v. Packard, 33 U.S. 8 Pet. 312 312 (1834) Davis v. Packard 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 312 ERROR TO THE COURT FOR THE CORRECTION OF ERRORS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Syllabus At a former term of this Court, the judgment of the Court for the Correction of Errors of the State of New York was reversed in this case, this Court being of opinion that Charles A. Davis, being Consul General of the King of Saxony, was exempted from being sued in the state court, and that by reason thereof, the judgment rendered against him by the Court for the Correction of Errors was erroneous, and ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the Court for the Correction of Errors should be and the same was thereby reversed, and that the cause be remanded to the Court for the Correction of Errors with directions to conform its judgment to this opinion. A mandate issued in pursuance of this judgment to the Court for the Correction of Errors, and that cou...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »