Court : US Supreme Court
CAMPBELL v. RICHARDSON - 1 U.S. 131 (1785) U.S. Supreme Court CAMPBELL v. RICHARDSON, 1 U.S. 131 (1785) 1 U.S. 131 (Dall.) Campbell v. Richardson Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County June Term, 1785 The Defendant had been bail for his brother, who suffering judgment to go against him, a Scire facias was issued against the defendant, and in due course judgment thereon. In the interim, between the recognizance of bail and judgment on the Scire facias, several judgments were obtained against the defendant by his proper creditors, executions issued, and his real estate was seized and sold. But the proceeds not being sufficient to satisfy all the judgments, the Sheriff brought the money into Court, to be disposed of as the Court should direct. Sergeant, for the plaintiff Campbell, insisted, that recognizance of bail is a lien upon the land from the date of the recognizance, and, therefore, claimed a preference to all judgments afterwards obtained, although, they might be prev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
APPEAL OF GRAHAM - 1 U.S. 136 (1785) U.S. Supreme Court APPEAL OF GRAHAM, 1 U.S. 136 (1785) 1 U.S. 136 (Dall.) Graham's Appeal v. Circuit Court, Pennsylvania District Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1785 This was an appeal from the Orphan's Court of Philadelphia; and after argument, the Chief Justice delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court to the following effect: McKean, Chief Justice. The intestate had left seven children, all under the age of fourteen years; their mother married the Baron appellant. Upon petition to the Orphan's Court by the children, for the appointment of guardians, Enoch Edwards, and another, were appointed. This appeal is founded upon an idea, that the guardian in Soccage, or by nurture, must be appointed, and that the Orphan's Court have not a discretion. In England, the next of kin, to whom the inheritance cannot descend, must be appointed guardian, the mother therefore would have been entitled to the appointment there; but in P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
VANHORN'S LESSEE v. HARRISON - 1 U.S. 137 (1785) U.S. Supreme Court VANHORN'S LESSEE v. HARRISON, 1 U.S. 137 (1785) 1 U.S. 137 (Dall.) Vanhort's Lessee v. Harrison Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1785 This was an ejectment brought for a messuage and plantation, in Bensalem Township, in Bucks County. A case being stated, it was thrice argued by Sergeant, and Bradford, for the plaintiff, and Lewis and Wilcocks for the defendant. The Chief Justice now recapitulated the material points, and delivered the opinion of the Court as follows. McKean, Chief Justice. This cause comes before the Court on a case made for their opinion. The case is long and has stated several particulars, which can have but little influence upon the decision. The material facts are: That a certain Johannes Vandergrift was seized in see of the premises in question, and, being so seized, by his last will and testament in writing, dated the 16th March 1732, devised the same unto his eldest so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
MCCULLUM v. COXE - 1 U.S. 139 (1785) U.S. Supreme Court MCCULLUM v. COXE, 1 U.S. 139 (1785) 1 U.S. 139 (Dall.) M'Cullum v. Coxe Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1785 The jury were at the bar to try the issue in this case, when Levy moved to discontinue, in consequence of a power of attorney granted by the plaintiff for that purpose. But it was opposed by Ingersoll in behalf of General Forman, to whom, for a valuable Page 1 U.S. 139, 140 consideration, the Plaintiff had assigned the debt, and the defendant had undertaken to pay it to him accordingly. These facts being made to appear, The Court said they would not allow any collusive settlement between the original parties, to affect General Forman's bona fide assignment, and ordered the jury to be sworn. And M'Kean, Chief Justice, observed, that where an action was brought under such circumstances, it ought to be mentioned upon the docket for whose use; a practise which had always prevailed when he was at the b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
MORRIS v. DE MARS - 1 U.S. 140 (1785) U.S. Supreme Court MORRIS v. DE MARS, 1 U.S. 140 (1785) 1 U.S. 140 (Dall.) Morris v. De Mars Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1785 It was ruled in this case, that a relation of a superior and inferior officer, does not, of itself, bind the former to pay the contracts of the latter, whether in the staff or line. But if the inferior officer had an authority to contract, and having obtained money for the use of the army, applied it accordingly, in such case The Court inclined to think, that the superior would be liable for the debt, provided he had sufficient public funds to discharge it. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
WOODS v. COURTER - 1 U.S. 141 (1785) U.S. Supreme Court WOODS v. COURTER, 1 U.S. 141 (1785) 1 U.S. 141 (Dall.) Woods v. Courter, et. al. Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County September Term, 1785 The register of a ship, or, in other words, an affidavit made by one of the defendants (who, however, was not in Court, the return, with respect to him, being non est inventus) stating that the ship belonged jointly to him and other persons, being copied from the books of the naval officers and certified under his seal of office, was allowed, after argument, to be read in evidence against the defendants. And Shippen, President, mentioned the case of the protest of a master of a vessel, which had been allowed to be evidence in his favor. See ant. 6. The defendants counsel took a bill of exceptions to the opinion of the Court, which, however, was never prosecuted, as the plaintiff eventually suffered a nonsuit. Lewis for the plaintiff. Sergeant for the defendant.[ Woods v. Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
DORROW v. KELLY - 1 U.S. 142 (1785) U.S. Supreme Court DORROW v. KELLY, 1 U.S. 142 (1785) 1 U.S. 142 (Dall.) Dorrow Assignee v. Kelly Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County September Term, 1785 This came before the Courts on a case stated; in substance as follows: On the 5th of March 1782, a mortgage was executed by Abel Kelly to Thomas Groome and his assigns, for securing the payment of L47.4.0 with interest on the 5th of March 1783. On the 9th of August 1782, the mortgage was assigned for a valuable consideration to John Dorrow; who sued out a Scire Facias to June Term 1784, the day of payment being past. After the Assignment, and before the Scire Facias sued, Kelly became indebted to the said Dorrow by notes and book accounts in divers sums, which still remain unpaid and payable. Ingersoll, for the defendant, had obtained a rule to show cause why the proceedings on the Scire Facias should not be stayed, upon payment of the principal mortgage money, interests and costs o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
BROWN v. SCOTT - 1 U.S. 145 (1785) U.S. Supreme Court BROWN v. SCOTT, 1 U.S. 145 (1785) 1 U.S. 145 (Dall.) Brown v. Scott et al. Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County. September Term, 1785 Rule to show cause why the report of referrees should not be set aside. The facts were these: Four actions had been brought upon four promisory notes, and the parties, being willing to refer them, by a written agreement entered a fifth action on the docket, in order to take in another note, which had become due since the return of the preceeding writs; and accordingly the whole were referred to persons nominated by the Court, a rule for that purpose being taken out in each action. The parties were heard before the referrees, and the report agreed upon, when a difficulty occurred, how to apportion the sum that was found due, or in what manner to make the report, if it was not apportioned. The referrees, therefore, applied to a gentleman of the law, who advised them to connect the five r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
MORRIS v. TARIN - 1 U.S. 147 (1785) U.S. Supreme Court MORRIS v. TARIN, 1 U.S. 147 (1785) 1 U.S. 147 (Dall.) Morris v. Tarin Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County. September Term, 1785 A Case was made in this cause for the opinion of the Court, stating, that the defendant bought a bill of exchange drawn by Benjamin Harrison & Co. upon a house in France, which was presented to the drawee in February 1784, and protested for non acceptance. Before it was presented, however, the drawee had become insolvent, and an arret was issued by the French government, prohibiting the institution of suits against him for a certain time. When the bill became due (the arret still continuing in force) it was again presented, and, on the 5th of June 1784, protested for non payment. Without any knowledge of the second protest, and without any suit or compulsion of law, the plaintiff, who was one of the partners of the company that drew the bill, repaid the defendant the principal, interes...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
HENDERSON v. ALLEN - 1 U.S. 149 (1785) U.S. Supreme Court HENDERSON v. ALLEN, 1 U.S. 149 (1785) 1 U.S. 149 (Dall.) Henderson v. Allen Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County. September Term, 1785 A judgment had been entered at the settlement of the docket, and the defendant was taken in execution on a Ca. Sa. returnable to December Term 1785. He now applied for the benefit of the insolvent acts, although he was not taken in execution till the 26th of September, and his petition was presented subsequent to the application made by the debtors, on the third day of the term. The Court said that the practice under the act for the relief of insolvent debtors, was, that only those should be discharged, who made their application within the three first days of the term; for, otherwise, the Court might be continually employed on this business, to the delay and detriment of every other. The Prothonotary mentioned, on this occasion, that it was the constant practice to enquire, whe...
Tag this Judgment!