Court : US Supreme Court
MCDILL v. MCDILL - 1 U.S. 63 (1782) U.S. Supreme Court MCDILL v. MCDILL, 1 U.S. 63 (1782) 1 U.S. 63 (Dall.) McDill Lessee v. McDill* Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1782 A deed executed by two persons, with one was, and another ink seal, attested by one witness only, and merely proved by him before a justice, without being recorded was offered in evidence. It was objected, that by the Act of Assembly, 1 St. Laws. 78. a Deed must be executed before, and be proved by, two witnesses; and that even that kind of proof was not to be received, unless the party was dead, or otherwise unable to appear and acknowledge the [ McDill v. McDill 1 U.S. 63 (1782) execution; which was not the case of the lessor of the Plaintiff when the deed was actually proved before the justice. To this it was answered, that the Act of Assembly only related to the proof which entitled a Deed to be recorded, &c.; that many Deeds might be given in evidence, which were not so entitled; as in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
MORRIS' LESSEE v. VANDEREN - 1 U.S. 64 (1782) U.S. Supreme Court MORRIS' LESSEE v. VANDEREN, 1 U.S. 64 (1782) 1 U.S. 64 (Dall.) Morris Lessee v. Vanderen Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1782 Several points of evidence were determined in this cause; which was an Ejectment, brought for the recovery of a lot on the west side of Second street, in Philadelphia. 1st. The Plaintiff, in order to show that the persons under whom he claimed were original purchasers from William Penn, the proprietary, offered in evidence a paper from the proprietary's, (or rather surveyor general's) office, containing the list of names of such persons as were original purchasers; and therein were the names of those from whom the plaintiff derived his title. It was objected to, because the deeds themselves ought to be produced, as it did not appear that they had been destroyed. But it was answered, that the lot in question is appurtenant to a large tract of land, and that the deeds are in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
SHRIDER'S LESSEE v. MORGAN - 1 U.S. 68 (1782) U.S. Supreme Court SHRIDER'S LESSEE v. MORGAN, 1 U.S. 68 (1782) 1 U.S. 68 (Dall.) Shrider's Lessee v. Morgan Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1782 In this cause, M'Kean C. S. said, that he had ruled it in a case at Lancaster, that the lessor of the plaintiff shall not be obliged to show his title further back, than from the person who last died seized, first showing the estate to be out of the Proprietaries, or the commonwealth. It was objected by Lewis and Clymer, that a sheriff's deed of sale of lands, under a writ of venditioni exponas, not being recorded in the Rolls Office, according to the Act of Assembly of 1774, could not be read in evidence. Sed mon allocatur: Because it was acknowledged [ Shrider's Lessee v. Morgan 1 U.S. 68 (1782) in court, and the registring of it in the Prothonotary's office (as is always done) is a sufficient recording within the act. Sergeant and Ingersol opposed the reading a deed in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
WILCOX v. HENRY - 1 U.S. 69 (1782) U.S. Supreme Court WILCOX v. HENRY , 1 U.S. 69 (1782) 1 U.S. 69 (Dall.) Wilcox et al. v. Henry Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1782 The case was this: In the close of the year 1777, one Stephen Backhouse arrived at Philadelphia from Liverpool, the troops of the king of Great Britain being at that time in possession of the city. Backhouse brought with him a large and valuable cargo of salt, which he stored in the warehouse of one Pritchard, and after a short stay in Philadelphia, he went to New-York, (then likewise in the possession of the British troops) consigning the salt to Messrs. Jones, Backhouse, and Foulk, of Philadelphia, with directions that they should sell it for him, at the best price they could get, but not under a dollar per bushel. Backhouse, one of the consignees, was no relation whatever of Backhouse the owner. The consignees, accordingly, sold part of the salt to different persons, and on the 17th of June 1778, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
THE ERSTERN - 2 U.S. 34 (1782) U.S. Supreme Court THE ERSTERN, 2 U.S. 34 (1782) 2 U.S. 34 (Dall.) Darby, et. al. Appellants v. The Brig Erstern, et al. Federal Court of Appeals January Sessions, 1782 This was an appeal from the Admiralty of the State of Massachusetts bay, where the Brig and her cargo had been acquitted. The case was argued on the 28th, 29th and 30th of January; and, on the 5th February 1782, the definitive sentence of the court was pronounced by Paca and Griffin, the presiding commissioners, in the following terms: By the Court. Upon the evidence in this case, we are of opinion, that the Brig, at the time of her capture, was the property of Imperial subjects at Ostend, and that the cargo was British property, unprotected by the capitulation of Dominica. It is objected, 'The Brig is not prize, because neutral property.' Neutral property cannot be captured: For, while the character of neutrality is preserved, such property is the property of a friend, on which th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
KEANE v. THE GLOUCESTER - 2 U.S. 36 (1782) U.S. Supreme Court KEANE v. THE GLOUCESTER, 2 U.S. 36 (1782) 2 U.S. 36 (Dall.) Keane, et. al. Libellants and Appellants v. The Brig Gloucester, et al. Appellees Federal Court of Appeals January Sessions, 1782 This was an appeal from the Admiralty of Pennsylvania, and after argument, Paca and Griffin, the presiding Commissioners, delivered the following sentence. Page 2 U.S. 36, 37 By the Court: Two objections are made to the decree below: The first objection is, that a libel does not lie by the crew of a privateer, for their respective proportions of a prize. The second objection is, that the libellants, in this case, are not part of the privateer's crew, nor captors, entitled to a proportion of the prize stated in their libel. With regard to the first objection, we are of opinion, that a libel does lie, and that it is the proper and regular mode of redress: For, the commission of a privateer, according to the form established by C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
JACOBS v. ADAMS - 1 U.S. 52 (1781) U.S. Supreme Court JACOBS v. ADAMS, 1 U.S. 52 (1781) 1 U.S. 52 (Dall.) The Claim of Jacobs v. Adams Executor Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1781 This case had been argued on the 3rd of July by Lewis for the Claimant, and Bradford for the estate of Adams. The former cited 2 P. Will. 157, 154. Pract. Reg. Barn. 151. 3 Wils. 206. 2 Burr 1083. The latter cited 10 Mod. 277. 6. Mod. 167. And now, the 8th of July, the CHIEF JUSTICE stated the question, and delivered the opinion of the Court, to the following effect: M'KEAN, C. J. The Testator, Flowers, and Jacobs, entered into an agreement for the sale of certain lands; soon after which Flower's died, and Jacobs paid the purchase money to his executors. The will, however, which appointed these executors, was afterwards set aside, having been obtained by undue influence; and Jacobs filed the present claim to recover the money that he had thus improperly paid. The only question submitted t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. CHAPMAN - 1 U.S. 53 (1781) U.S. Supreme Court RESPUBLICA v. CHAPMAN, 1 U.S. 53 (1781) 1 U.S. 53 (Dall.) Respublica v. Samuel Chapman Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1781 By a proclamation, dated the 15th June 1778, issued by the Supreme Executive Council, in pursuance of the act of Assembly, passed the 6th of March preceeding, for the attainder of divers traitors, &c.; the prisoner had been required to surrender himself on the 1st of August following, &c.; or to be attainted of high treason agreeably to that act. The time allowed for his surrender being elapsed; the Attorney General filed a suggestion, in the usual form, stating that Samuel Chapman the prisoner was the person required by the proclamation to surrender himself, &c.; that he had not surrendered himself, &c.; that he was therefore attainted; and this he was ready to verify, &c.; The Chief Justice then asked the prisoner, what he had to say, why execution should not be awarded against him. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. BUFFINGTON - 1 U.S. 60 (1781) U.S. Supreme Court RESPUBLICA v. BUFFINGTON, 1 U.S. 60 (1781) 1 U.S. 60 (Dall.) Respublica v. Joshua Buffington Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1781 The Attorney General filed a suggestion, stating, that Joshua Buffington of the county of Chester, yeoman, being a subject, or inhabitant of the State, was by proclamation of the Supreme Executive Council, dated the 2nd of October 1780, required in pursuance of the attainder law, to surrender himself to a justice of the Supreme Court &c.; on or before the 13th of November, 1780, to abide his legal trial for the treasons in the proclamation mentioned, &c.; That the said Joshua Buffington did not surrender himself, &c.; whereby he is attainted, &c.; and he prays an award of execution. [ Respublica v. Buffington 1 U.S. 60 (1781) Joshua Buffington, the prisoner, pleaded, ore tenus, that he is not the Joshua Buffington, in the proclamation named, and was not required to surr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
MCVEAUGH v. GOODS - 1 U.S. 62 (1781) U.S. Supreme Court MCVEAUGH v. GOODS, 1 U.S. 62 (1781) 1 U.S. 62 (Dall.) M'Veaugh v. Goods Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1781 Certain goods of British manufacture being imported into the County of Philadelphia, contrary to the Act of Assembly, passed the 10th of September 1778, they were attached, and this information filed against them. The owners of the goods exhibited a claim, and the merits of the case were brought to trial, at an adjourned court, on the 10th of January 1782, when the following points of evidence were ruled. In support of the information one Scull was called as a witness, who, being examined on the voire dire, said that he assisted in making a seizure of the goods; and, in case they were condemned, but not otherwise, he expected some compensation from M'Veaugh's generosity, although he had received no certain promise of that kind. Lewis, for the Claimants, contended against the admission of Scull's te...
Tag this Judgment!