Us Supreme Court Court January 1842 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.
Watkins Vs. Holman
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1842
Watkins v. Holman - 41 U.S. 25 (1842) U.S. Supreme Court Watkins v. Holman, 41 U.S. 16 Pet. 25 25 (1842) Watkins v. Holman 1 U.S. (16 Pet.) 25 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA Syllabus Ejectment to recover possession of a lot in the City of Mobile, Alabama. The defendants, in the circuit court, claimed title to the land under Lucy Landry, who was the devisee of one Geronio, who having been in possession of the lot at the corner of St. Francis and Royal Streets, occupied it until his death. On the arrival of Lucy Landry at age, she occupied the lot as her own property, and in 1818 she sold and conveyed it by deed to certain persons, stating the eastern boundary in the deed to be the Mobile River. These persons on the same day conveyed the premises to Oliver Holman, who entered on it and improved it by erecting houses and a wharf upon it, and continued to occupy it as a merchant in co-partnership with one Charles Brown, who liv...
Gordon Vs. Longest
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1842
Gordon v. Longest - 41 U.S. 97 (1842) U.S. Supreme Court Gordon v. Longest, 41 U.S. 16 Pet. 97 97 (1842) Gordon v. Longest 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 97 ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KENTUCKY Syllabus An action was instituted in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, in the State of Kentucky, by a citizen of that state under an act of the Legislature of Kentucky against a citizen of the State of Pennsylvania to recover damages, alleging the same in the declaration to be one thousand dollars, for having taken on board of the steamboat Guyandotte, commanded by him, a slave belonging to the plaintiff, from the shore of Indiana, on the voyage of the steamboat, proceeding up the Ohio River from Louisville to Cincinnati. The act of the Legislature of Kentucky subjects the master of a steamboat to the penalties created by the law who shall take on board the steamboat under his command a slave from the shore of the Ohio opposite to Kentucky in the same manner as if he had bee...
United States Vs. Low
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1842
United States v. Low - 41 U.S. 162 (1842) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Low, 41 U.S. 16 Pet. 162 162 (1842) United States v. Low 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 162 APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF EAST FLORIDA Syllabus A Florida land claim. On 6 April, 1816, a grant was made by the Governor of Florida of five miles square, or sixteen thousand acres of land, on condition that a mill should be built. The grant of six thousand acres was for land on Doctor's Branch, where the mill was intended to be erected. The ten thousand acres were granted on the northeast side, on the lagoon of Indian River. The six thousand acres were surveyed in 1809, on Doctor's Branch, and the mill was built. The survey under this grant, was confirmed. The survey of ten thousand acres was made in February, 1820, by the Surveyor General of Florida, "northwestwardly of the head of Indian River, and west of the prairies of the stream called North Creek, which empties itself at the head or pond of said river." T...
Nixdorff Vs. Smith
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1842
Nixdorff v. Smith - 41 U.S. 132 (1842) U.S. Supreme Court Nixdorff v. Smith, 41 U.S. 16 Pet. 132 132 (1842) Nixdorff v. Smith 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 132 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus A decree of a perpetual injunction on suits instituted on the common law side of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia reversed and the bill dismissed, the as counts between the parties having been erroneously adjusted in the circuit court. McKINLEY, JUSTICE, delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal to this court from the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia for the County of Washington, sitting in chancery. Smith, the appellee, filed a bill in chancery against Nixdorff stating that he had purchased of Nixdorff all his right and interest in the stock in trade and commercial business then carried on in the City of Baltimore by Nixdorff & Hager and agreed to pay to Nixdorff, in hand, the sum of $5,000, and at the e...
United States Vs. Hanson
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1842
United States v. Hanson - 41 U.S. 196 (1842) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Hanson, 41 U.S. 16 Pet. 196 196 (1842) United States v. Hanson 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 196 APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF EAST FLORIDA A Florida land claim. A grant of five miles square, or sixteen thousand acres of land, was made by the Spanish governor of East Florida at the mouth of the River Santa Lucia. The petition for the grant stated various merits and losses of the petitioner, and asked the grant of five miles square, for the construction of a water saw mill. The grant was given for the purposes mentioned, and "also paying attention to the services and other matters set forth in the petition." No survey under the grant was made by the Surveyor General of Florida, but a survey was made by a private surveyor. The survey did not follow the calls of the grant, and no proof was given that it was made at the place mentioned in the grant. The survey and plat were not made according to the establishe...
Kelsey Vs. Hobby
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1842
Kelsey v. Hobby - 41 U.S. 269 (1842) U.S. Supreme Court Kelsey v. Hobby, 41 U.S. 16 Pet. 269 269 (1842) Kelsey v. Hobby 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 269 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUGH CAROLINA Syllabus On the dissolution of a partnership in 1822, it was agreed with the out-going partners, H. and B., that the debts due to the partnership should be collected by the remaining partners, K. and McL., and the debts due by the partnership should be paid by them, and a fixed sum should be paid to H. and B., when a sufficient sum was collected for that purpose, beyond the amount of the debts due by the firm. In 1829, K. and McL. having gone on under this agreement to collect the debts due to, and pay the debts due by the partnership, H. and B. filed a bill in the Circuit Court of the South Carolina District against K. and McL., charging that there was a surplus of the partnership effects, after paying all the debts, sufficient to pay them the sum whic...
Prouty and Mears Vs. Ruggles
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1842
Prouty and Mears v. Ruggles - 41 U.S. 336 (1842) U.S. Supreme Court Prouty and Mears v. Ruggles, 41 U.S. 16 Pet. 336 336 (1842) Prouty and Mears v. Ruggles 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 336 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus The plaintiffs, in the circuit court, claimed damages for the infringement of their patent for "a new and useful improvement in the construction of a plough." The claim of the patents was for the combination of certain parts of the plough, not for the parts separately. The circuit court charged the jury, that unless it is proved that the whole combination is substantially used in the defendant's ploughs, it is not a violation of the plaintiff's patent; although one or more of the parts specified in the letters patent may be used in combination by the defendant. The plaintiffs, by their specification and summing up, treated the parts described as essential parts of their combination, for the purpose of brace and d...
Amis Vs. Smith
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1842
Amis v. Smith - 41 U.S. 303 (1842) U.S. Supreme Court Amis v. Smith, 41 U.S. 16 Pet. 303 303 (1842) Amis v. Smith 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 303 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI Syllabus Mississippi. Action on a promissory note against sundry persons surviving partners of the unincorporated Real Estate Bank of Columbus, Mississippi, founded on their certificate of deposit. All the defendants except Wright joined in the plea of nonassumpsit. Wright afterwards pleaded nonassumpsit separately. At the trial, all the defendants except Wright withdrew their plea and permitted judgment to go by default against them, and the plaintiff then discontinued the suit against Wright. Execution was issued and was levied on the property of Amis, who gave to the marshal a forthcoming bond with security, and the bond being forfeited, it was so returned by the marshal, which, by the statute of Mississippi, gives the bond the force and effect of a ju...
Todd Vs. Daniel
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1842
Todd v. Daniel - 41 U.S. 521 (1842) U.S. Supreme Court Todd v. Daniel, 41 U.S. 16 Pet. 521 521 (1842) Todd v. Daniel 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 521 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE Syllabus After the decree of the circuit court, an appeal was claimed by all the defendants and allowed by the court. A part of the defendants, who had originally claimed the appeal before any further proceedings abandoned it, and the residue of them, excepting Todd, have, since the appeal was filed, abandoned it, and Todd only has entered his appearance in the Supreme Court. The record stood in the names of all the appellants. A motion was made to dismiss the appeal for irregularity and want of jurisdiction on the ground that it cannot be maintained in behalf of Todd alone. The court refused to dismiss the appeal. The proper rule in cases of this sort, where there are various defendants, seems to be that all the defendants affected by a joint decree (although it ...
Swift Vs. Tyson
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: 1842
Swift v. Tyson - 41 U.S. 1 (1842) U.S. Supreme Court Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. 16 Pet. 1 1 (1842) Swift v. Tyson 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 1 Syllabus Action in the Circuit Court of New York on a bill of Exchange accepted in New York, instituted by the holder, a citizen of the state of Maine. The Acceptance and endorsement of the bill were admitted, and the defence was rested on allegations that the bill had been received in payment of a preexistent debt, and that the acceptance had been given for lands which the acceptor had purchased from the drawer of the bill, to which lands the drawer had no title, and that the quality of the lands had been misrepresented, and the purchaser imposed upon by the fraud of the drawer, and those who were co-owners of the land and cooperators in the sale. The bill accepted had been received bona fide, and before it was due. There is no doubt that a bona fide holder of a negotiable instrument for valuable consideration, without any notice of the facts w...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »