Case law

United States v. Brown

24 F. Cas. 1247 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Oct 15, 1833

United States v. Brown

24 F. Cas. 1246 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Dec 15, 1827

United States v. Brown

24 F. Cas. 1246 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Dec 15, 1804

[against Scipio Brown] for stealing a pair of boots, the property of Benjamin Birch. … S. v. McCann [Case No. 15,655], and of a former case, U. S. v. Clancey [Id. 14,800]; U. S. v. Hare [Id. 15.302], Bill of exceptions taken. Verdict, guilty. Sentence, twenty stripes, and one dollar fine.

United States v. Brown

24 F. Cas. 1247 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Nov 15, 1835

Pannill v. Eliason & Brown

18 F. Cas. 1084 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Dec 15, 1828

Brook v. Brown

4 F. Cas. 225 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Nov 15, 1838

In Farrow v. Brown, special bail of Russell, at the same term, Mr. Wallaeh moved the Court to discharge the bail upon the ground that the principal had been discharged, both by the laws of Alabama, and of this district. … Gales , special bail of Russell, and Farrow v. Brown, special bail of Russell, above mentioned. Mr. R. S. Coxe, cited Clay v. Smith, 3 Peters, 411 ; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 362, 363, 364 ; and Shaw v.

Swann's Administratrix v. Brown

23 F. Cas. 506 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Oct 15, 1832

That decision we believe to be fully warranted, by the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Virginia, in the case of Young v. Scott, 4 Rand. 415 , which case embraces and decides every point of demurrer made in this. … Reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States, ( 10 Peters, 497 ,) who do not seem to have noticed the case of Young v. Scott , 4 Randolph, 415, upon the authority of which case, this Court decided the cause.

Alexander Brown & Sons ex rel. Oliver v. Decatur

4 F. Cas. 366 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Nov 15, 1834

And further, (Thruston, J., contra.) at the prayer of the plaintiffs, instructed the jury, in substance, that, if they find, from the evidence, that when the amount of the loan was so paid by Oliver, to the Browns, and the … assignment was taken, it was not intended thereby to extinguish the debt, but that the same should be assigned by the said Browns to the said Oliver, and was, in consideration of such payment, so assigned, the plaintiffs

Smith v. Billing

22 F. Cas. 456 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Dec 15, 1828

,” (not naming them,) against the executors of Margaret Brown, who was the administratrix of Robert Brown, and her “ securities,” to set aside a credit claimed by her in her administration account, and to compel a distribution … The administrator de bonis non of Robert JBrown was the only party who could call on the executors of Margaret Brown for the assets of the estate of-Robert Brown, which came to the hands of Margaret Brown.

Mason v. Cutts

16 F. Cas. 1035 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Mar 15, 1838

that the plaintiff’s intestate had not a specific lien on the ship; and if he had, he abandoned it when he received bills of exchange for the amount of his claim, and therefore he can only come in as a general creditor of Brown

Cowperwaithe v. Gill

6 F. Cas. 674 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Sep 20, 1859

in the market Another witness saw these machines in use in 1843; saw them daily in operation six or nine months; Fosket made hat bodies on them for Tolman; and adds that Fosket and others, joint owners with the witness (Brown … In an interview between Fosket and Gill, at the house of the latter, he showed the former all the operation of the machine, including the internal regulator, the perforated board, and Fosket then made no claim to the internal

United States v. The Tropic Wind

28 F. Cas. 218 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Jun 13, 1861

S. v. Palmer. 3 Wheat. [16 U. S.] 463; Foster v. Neilson, 2 Pet. [27 U. S.] 253; Williams v. Suffolk Ins. Co., 13 Pet. [38 U. S.] 415; Luther v. Borden, 7 How. [48 U. S.] 1; and the case of Dorris’ Rebellion. … Brown, commander) on the 21st day of May, 1861.

United States v. Paxton

27 F. Cas. 470 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Dec 15, 1801

THE COURT directed the jury that if they should be of opinion that the defendant sold the liquor as clerk, agent, servant, or barkeeper of Brown, then he was not guilty. … It was the selling of Brown within the meaning of the act. See, also, U. S. v. Shuck [Case No. 16,285], Alexandria, Jan. term, 1802, and U. S. v. Voss [Id. 16,628].

Thompson v. Jamesson

23 F. Cas. 1051 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Mar 15, 1806

the defendant verbally promised to pay for them if Brown should be unable;” and denies that he made any other promise; and denies that the goods were sold to himself, &e. … And he refers to the case of Stewart v. Careless, cited in Whitchurch v. Bevis, 2 Brown, Ch. 566.

United States v. Carbery

25 F. Cas. 282 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Oct 15, 1822

Key, on the same side, cited Johnston v. Corporation of Charleston, 1 Bay, 441 ; Brosius v. Reuter, 1 Har. & J. 557 , 558. Mr. Swann, contra, cited Symmers v. Regem, Cowp. 498. … Swann, to show that upon a mandamus the-defendant cannot be amoved unless for the purpose of admitting the relator, cited Rex v. Mayor of Colchester, 2 Term R. 259; Rex v. Bishop of Chester, 1 Term R. 396; Geter v.

Swann's Administratrix v. Ringgold

23 F. Cas. 508 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Oct 15, 1832

Brown’s judgment against her. That, in making the arrangement, she was not deceived as to the value of the lands. The original judgment of W. T. Swann’s Administratrix v. … Walden v. Vessey, 1 Latch, 17; S. C. Palmer, 399; S. C. Popham, 173; Woodgate v. Knatchbull, 2 T. R. 148.

Holmead v. Smith

12 F. Cas. 391 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Nov 15, 1837

S. v. Donahoo [Case No. 14,982], in this court, at December term, 1S07; and the case of the Lord Proprietary v. Brown, 1 Har. & McH. 428.

United States v. Tolson

28 F. Cas. 200 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Dec 15, 1803

C. 136; and the case of Com. v. Cullins, 1 Mass. 116 . See U. S. v. Clancey [Case No. 14,800]; U. S. v. Hare [Id. 15,302]; U. S. v. McCan [Id. 15,655]; and U. S. v. Brown [Id. 14,657].

Davis v. Van Zandt

7 F. Cas. 181 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Jun 15, 1820

But see Wetzel v. Bussard, 11 Wheat. [24 U. S.] 309; Read v. Wilkinson [Case No. 11, 611]; Lonsdale v. Brown [Id. 8,492].

United States v. Frye

25 F. Cas. 1222 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · May 15, 1835

Jackson said, “shoot and be damned,” and jumped on board. … on board of the boat.