Court : US Supreme Court
TAXIER v. SWEET - 2 U.S. 81 (1766) U.S. Supreme Court TAXIER v. SWEET, 2 U.S. 81 (1766) 2 U.S. 81 (Dall.) Taxier, et. al. v. Sweet, et. al. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1766 The plaintiff brought an action of Trover, against the defendants, for a vessel and cargo, returnable to the Common Pleas of June term, 1769. The declaration recited, that the plaintiffs were possessed of the vessel and cargo, to wit, at Philadelphia County, the 31st of March, 1762; that they casually lost them; that the said 31st of March, they came to the possession of the defendants by finding; and that nevertheless the defendants, knowing the goods to belong to the plaintiffs, did not deliver them, &c.; but afterwards, on the same day and year, converted them to their own use, at Philadelphia County, &c.; The action being removed into this Court, was referred at April term, 1771, and the referrees reported L 2,900 to be due to the plaintiffs, subject to the opinion of the Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
DAVEY v. TURNER - 1 U.S. 11 (1764) U.S. Supreme Court DAVEY v. TURNER , 1 U.S. 11 (1764) 1 U.S. 11 (Dall.) Hugh Davey et ux. v. Peter Turner Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1764 King's Road. On confirmation of a Road by the Justices of Chester county, the Record was brought up by Certiorari; and it was moved to reverse the Judgment of confirmation, because the Justices below had refused to grant a Review, though petitioned thereto by a Person who complained he was aggrieved by the Roads running through his improved ground. On argument, The Court reversed the Judgment for that reason, alledging that a Review, though not taken notice of in the Act of Assembly, had always been granted, and was now become a matter of right. This Cause came before the Court for a determination on a special Verdict which found, That the Defendant's late Wife Sarah, before her Marriage, was seized of the Lands in question in fee; that after her Marriage, with the Defendant, she and he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
WALLACE v. CHILD AND STYLES - 1 U.S. 7 (1763) U.S. Supreme Court WALLACE v. CHILD AND STYLES , 1 U.S. 7 (1763) 1 U.S. 7 (Dall.) Thomas Wallace v. Child and Styles Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1763 Suit on a Policy of Insurance. It was set forth in the Declaration that the Vessel sprung a Leak at Sea, and put into Providence, through Necessity. The Master of the Ship was produced by the Plaintiff as a Witness to prove the Bill of Lading, and to give a general Account of the Transactions on board the Vessel and at Providence. His admission was opposed, because the Captain himself had Goods on board which were insured, and the Money was refused to be paid by the Underwriters on his Policy till this Suit was determined, and therefore he was interested. But it was answered, that the Master of the Ship was the only Person who can be supposed capable of giving a full Account of the Matter; and part of the Defence in this Case being, that the Goods insured were innumerat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
PRICE v. WATKINS - 1 U.S. 8 (1763) U.S. Supreme Court PRICE v. WATKINS , 1 U.S. 8 (1763) 1 U.S. 8 (Dall.) Price v. Watkins Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1763 Special Verdict. The Question arose on these Words of a Will. Item my Will is that after my Wife Ruth Price's Decease, or if she shall alter her Condition and marry, then in such Case i devise and bequeath unto my loving Friends I. W. and M. K. or to any one of them, in case the other should die, in Trust and for the Intent to sell and convey all that Mefluage & c. to any Person or Persons that shall purchase the same, and the Money arising from the Sale of the Premises shall be di ided between my Children herein after named, when they attain severally to the Age of 21 Years or be married, which shall first happen. Samuel Price one of the Children attained the Age of 21 Years and married, and afterwards died intestate and without issue, in the life Time of the Testators Widow Ruth Price, who did never marry agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
KING v. LUKENS - 1 U.S. 5 (1762) U.S. Supreme Court KING v. LUKENS , 1 U.S. 5 (1762) 1 U.S. 5 (Dall.) The King v. John Lukens Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1762 Indictment for a Nuisance. Mr. Dickenson, for the Defendant, moved that a Prosecutor should be indorsed on the Indictment, agreeably to the Act of Assembly,* before the Defendant should be put to plead. Mr. Chew, Attorney General, urged that such a Construction ought to be put on the Act as that public Justice may not be eluded; and that there should be no Necessity to indorse a Prosecutor, unless it be proved that there is some person active in carrying on a Prosecution; because, if it took its rise from the Grand Jury, or a Justice of the Peace, no Person could be indorsed; and Offenders of the highest Nature would escape being brought to Justice. By the Court. It often happens that all the Witnesses necessary to support a public Prosecution are brought unwillingly to give Evidence; and the Act could ne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
STEVENSON v. PEMBERTON - 1 U.S. 3 (1760) U.S. Supreme Court STEVENSON v. PEMBERTON , 1 U.S. 3 (1760) 1 U.S. 3 (Dall.) Stevenson v. Pemberton Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1760 Scire facias against Defendant as Garnishee. The Case was; C. in the West-Indies was indebted to P, the Defendant, for Bills of Exchange drawn by C, in Favour of P, which were protested. P. by Letter solicits C. for Security. C. consigns a Quantity of Rum to P. and by Letter directs P. to sell the same for his (C's) Account, and apply the Proceeds to the Payment of some protested Bills drawn by C. in favour of other People 'first being satisfied that his (P's) Bills were paid.' The Bills of Lading express this Rum to be shipped on the proper, Account and Risque of C. The Rum comes into P's Hands, but before any Sale, the Plaintiff S. a Creditor of C. brought a foreign Attachment against C. and attached these Goods in the Hands of P. The Question on these Facts, as found by a special Verdict, wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
ASHETON v. ASHETON - 1 U.S. 4 (1760) U.S. Supreme Court ASHETON v. ASHETON , 1 U.S. 4 (1760) 1 U.S. 4 (Dall.) The Lessee of Ashton v. Ashton Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1760 On special Verdict. Devise to the first Heir Male of I.S. when he shall arrive to the Age of 21 Years, he paying to A. and B. the Daughters of I.S. L. 40 each. After Deviser's Death I.S. had a Son, who attained the Age of 21 Years, and paid his Sisters the L. 40 each. The Question was, whether the Son of I. S. could take by executory Devise? It was objected for the Defendant, 1st. That this being a present Devise it could not take Effect because to a Persor not in esse. 2nd. That though it might be construed a future Devise, yet it was too remote; for an executory Devise must take effect within the Compass of a Life or Lives in esse, or at farthest within nine Months after: And in this case I. S. might have had no Son but a Daughter, who might have had a Daughter, who might have had a Son, who...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
HYAM'S LESSEE v. EDWARDS - 1 U.S. 1 (1759) U.S. Supreme Court HYAM'S LESSEE v. EDWARDS, 1 U.S. 1 (1759) 1 U.S. 1 (Dall.) The Lessee of Hyam and others v. Edwards Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1759 Copy of a Deed inrolled in the King's Bench in England, proved before the Lord Mayor of London to be a true one; allowed to be given in Evidence to a Jury to support a Title to Lands in this Province.* Footnotes [ Footnote * ] 11 mod. 2 c. 2. [ Hyam's Lessee v. Edwards Footnote 1 U.S. 1 (1759) ] ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
BETHEL v. LLOYD - 1 U.S. 2 (1759) U.S. Supreme Court BETHEL v. LLOYD, 1 U.S. 2 (1759) 1 U.S. 2 (Dall.) Bethel v. Lloyd and Others. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April Term, 1759 Partition. Plea nontenet insimul, & c. Defendants permitted to give in Evidence to the Jury, that some of them were not Tenants of the Freehold* but only Tenants at Will. Footnotes [ Footnote * ] Cro. El. 759. Litt. Rep.[ Bethel v. Lloyd Footnote 1 U.S. 2 (1759) ] ...
Tag this Judgment!