Court : US Supreme Court
RODMAN v. HOOPS EX'RS - 1 U.S. 85 (1784) U.S. Supreme Court RODMAN v. HOOPS EX'RS, 1 U.S. 85 (1784) 1 U.S. 85 (Dall.) Rodman et al. ex. v. Hoops's ex. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1784 In this cause, the defendant's offered in evidence an entry made in the books of the testator, of money paid in discharge of a promissory note. This was acknowledged to be the orignal entry; but there was no proof by whom it was made, or, whether the person who made it was dead, or alive. By the Court. Let it be read to the jury; not as evidence that the defendant has paid the note, but merely that such an entry was made nineteen years ago, of the payment of a note of twenty three years standing; and to support the general presumption of payment after such a length of time. Nor is this to be drawn into precedent; for our allowance of the evidence is founded on the particular circumstances of this case. To prove another point in the same cause, a book was offered, in the form ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. DOAN - 1 U.S. 86 (1784) U.S. Supreme Court RESPUBLICA v. DOAN, 1 U.S. 86 (1784) 1 U.S. 86 (Dall.) Respublica v. Doan Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1784 Aaron Doan, being attainted of a robbery in the county of Bucks, by process of Outlawry, he was brought before the Court on the 24th day of September 1784; and, after hearing his Counsel upon several exceptions to the outlawry, (which were all over-ruled) execution was awarded against him on the 9th day of October. The following correspondence then took place between the Honorable the Supreme Executive Council, and the judges; in the course of which several important points of law were stated and considered. * On the 22nd of November 1784, the President and Supreme Executive Council addressed the following letter to the Judges. Gentlemen, [ Respublica v. Doan 1 U.S. 86 (1784) We have perused, and attentively considered, the transcript of the record transmitted by you, of the attainder of Aa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
HAMILTON'S LESSEE v. GALLOWAY - 1 U.S. 93 (1784) U.S. Supreme Court HAMILTON'S LESSEE v. GALLOWAY, 1 U.S. 93 (1784) 1 U.S. 93 (Dall.) Hamilton's Lessee v. Galloway Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1784 A deed proved by the affidavit of one of the witnesses before a Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, but not recorded, was offered in evidence. It was objected, however, that this attestation is no proof of the deed at common law, unless it be an ancient deed, and possession is proved to have gone along with it; for, the witness ought to appear in Court. Nor is it admissible under the Act of Assembly, for that expressly requires it to be recorded. Yeates answered, that the point had already been ruled in McDill, versus McDill. * And, by the Court: The deed may be read in evidence; for, the recording does not contribute to the proof of the deed, [ Hamilton's Lessee v. Galloway 1 U.S. 93 (1784) which is established by the oath before the justice; the recordi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
HIGHT v. WILSON - 1 U.S. 94 (1784) U.S. Supreme Court HIGHT v. WILSON, 1 U.S. 94 (1784) 1 U.S. 94 (Dall.) Hight v. Wilson Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1784 This was a signed issue to try the validity of a will, against the probate of which, a caveat had been entered in the Register's Office. The plea was insanity in the testator; and evidence was given of habitual drunkenness, old age, weakness of body, shortness of memory, and a few incoherent expressions. The jury however, in a very short time, gave a verdict for the plaintiff in the issue, who was the devisee in the will. The Chief Justice, in his charge to the jury, informed them, 1st. That it was not necessary that a will, devising real estate in this Commonwealth, should be sealed. 2nd. Nor that all the subscribing witnesses should prove the execution. 3rd. Nor that the proof of the will should be made by those who subscribed as witnesses. 4th. Nor that the will should be subscribed by the witnesses.* ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
TALBOT v. COMMANDERS & OWNERS OF THREE BRIGS - 1 U.S. 95 (1784) U.S. Supreme Court TALBOT v. COMMANDERS & OWNERS OF THREE BRIGS, 1 U.S. 95 (1784) 1 U.S. 95 (Dall.) Talbot qui tam &c.; v. The Commanders and Owners of three Brigsa High Court of Errors and Appeals, of Pennsylvania September Sessions, 1784 This was an appeal from a decree in the Admiralty on the following case: Silas Talbot, commander of the armed sloop Argo, belonging to, and in the service of these States, duly commissioned, sailed from New London, in the State of Connecticut, the twenty-ninth of August, 1779, on a cruise. On the sixth of September, after an engagement of three hours, he took as prize upon the High Seas, an armed Letter of Marque vessel, called the Betsey, of two hundred tons burthen, with a valuable cargo, belonging to subjects of Great Britain, not being inhabitants of Bermuda, and bound for New York, then in possession of the British naval and land forces. He took the commander and eleven of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. KEATING - 1 U.S. 110 (1784) U.S. Supreme Court RESPUBLICA v. KEATING, 1 U.S. 110 (1784) 1 U.S. 110 (Dall.) Respublica v. Keating Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia October Sessions, 1784 Luke Keating was indicted for forging a promisory note payable to John Meng, with a forged indorsement of John Meng & Co. Lewis, for the defendant, objected to the admission of Meng's testimony; contending, that if Meng could prove that the note was false, it would discharge him from the payment; and if he proved it to be a genuine note, his evidence might be given against him in a civil action founded upon the note; in either event he was an interested witness, and, consequently, an incompetent one. Salk. 283. Hardr. 331. 2, Hawk. 433. Stra. 728. 1043. 1104. Ingersol (who prosecuted on this occasion for the Attorney General) argued, that, to prevent an interruption and failure of justice, and the escape of offenders, the injured person was in all cases of indictme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. DE LONGCHAMPS - 1 U.S. 111 (1784) U.S. Supreme Court RESPUBLICA v. DE LONGCHAMPS, 1 U.S. 111 (1784) 1 U.S. 111 (Dall.) Respublica v. De Longchamps Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia October Sessions, 1784 Charles Julian De Longchamps, commonly called the Chevalier De Longchamps, was indicted, that 'he on the 17th of May, 1784, in the dwelling-house of his Excellency the French Minister Plenipotentiary, in the presence of Francis Barbe Marbois, unlawfully and insolently did threaten and menace bodily harm and violence to the person of the said Francis Barbe Marbois, he being Consul General of France to the United States, Consul for the State of Pennsylvania, Secretary of the French Legation &c.; resident in the house aforesaid, and under the protection of the law of nations and this Commonwealth.' And that 'afterwards, to wit on the 19th of May in the public street &c.; he the said Charles Julian de Longchamps unlawfully, premeditatedly and viole...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
GERARD v. BASSE - 1 U.S. 119 (1784) U.S. Supreme Court GERARD v. BASSE, 1 U.S. 119 (1784) 1 U.S. 119 (Dall.) Gerard v. Basse et al. Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County December Term, 1784 The defendants declining in their circumstances, and being much pressed by their creditors, Basse fled, and Soyer was imprisoned at the suit of the Plaintiff. During his confinement, he executed a bond and warrant to confess judgment, to which there was one seal, and the signature was in this form, 'John Abraham Soyer for Basse & Soyer.' And now a motion was made to set aside the judgment, at the instance of the creditors in general, in order that an equal distribution might he made of the effects under a domestic attachment, which had issued against Basse and Soyer. Sergeant and Moylan, in support of the motion, argued, that the bond was a payment of the debt in the eye of the law; and that Page 1 U.S. 119, 120 although Basse was liable to Soyer's action for a contribution,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
KENNEDY v. FURY - 1 U.S. 72 (1783) U.S. Supreme Court KENNEDY v. FURY, 1 U.S. 72 (1783) 1 U.S. 72 (Dall.) Kennedy v. Fury Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1783 A conveyance was made to A. in trust for B. and B. brought an ejectment on his own demise. Blair contended that the demise ought to have been laid in the name of A. in-as-much as the legal estate was in him. But by Atlee Justice, (M'Kean C. J. being absent) the demise by B. is well enough. We have no Court of Equity here; and, therefore, unless the cestui que trust could bring an ejectment in his own name, he would be without remedy, in the case of an obstinate trustee.[ Kennedy v. Fury 1 U.S. 72 (1783) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. MESCA - 1 U.S. 73 (1783) U.S. Supreme Court RESPUBLICA v. MESCA, 1 U.S. 73 (1783) 1 U.S. 73 (Dall.) Respublica v. Mesca et Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia September Sessions, 1783 This was an indictment against four Italians for the murder of Captain Pickles; and, upon the arraignment of the prisoners, the Court assigned Ingersol and Swift as counsel for them. These gentlemen then challenged the array, and moved for an award of a tales de medietate lingua; but the Attorney General controverted the propriety of the motion, and it was twice argued, on the 25th and 29th of September. The counsel for the prisoners urged, that the Stat. of Edw. 3. c. 13. was a beneficial law, encouraging foreigners to come into the country; that, in practice, it had been extended to Pennsylvania before the revolution, and found policy justified its continuance. In the course of their argument the following authorities were cited: 1 Pen. Laws 89. 28. Edw. 3. c 13. 4 Bl. C...
Tag this Judgment!