Case law

Fanny v. Kell

8 F. Cas. 995 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · May 15, 1823

Judgment was rendered for the defendant upon the case stated; upon the authority of the case of Brown v. Wingard [Case No. 2,034], in Washington, at April term, 1822.

Coombe v. Meade

2 D.C. 547 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Dec 15, 1824

In the case of Brinkershoff v. Brown & others, A Johns. Ch. Ca. 671, Chancellor Kent says, “ But I am sorry to say that the plaintiffs have not shown enough when they only show themselves to be judgment creditors. … See also Williams v. Brown, 4 John. Ch. Rep. 682, and McDerr molt v. Strong, Id. 687.

Hodgson v. Turner

12 F. Cas. 286 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Mar 15, 1802

THE COURT, on the authority of Brown v. Barry and Clarke v. Russel [supra], refused to give the instruction as prayed. Mr.

Wisner v. Ogden

30 F. Cas. 388 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Apr 15, 1827

And it was stated by the counsel in the case of Deloraine v. Browne, 3 Brown, Ch. 646, that Lord Kenyon had allowed a demurrer in the ease of Beckford v. Close [cited in 4 Ves. 476]. … Deloraine v. Browne, 3 Brown, Ch. 646; Edsell v. Buchanan, 2 Ves. Jr. 83; 4 Brown, Ch. 254.

Oliver v. Decatur

18 F. Cas. 656 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Mar 15, 1834

Ca. 258; Brown v. Barkham, 1 P. W. 652; Thornhill v. Evans, 1 Atk. 330; Morgan v. Mather, 2 Ves. Jr. 15; Waring v. Cunliffe, 1 Id. 99.) Verdict for plaintiff, $7,558.

Levering v. Bank of Columbia

15 F. Cas. 412 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Dec 15, 1803

under the first agreement; but if the prosecution of the voyage was abandoned, and after the revocation of the first orders, he remained on board to take care of the ship in port, a voyage not being contemplated at the time … Levering v. Bank of Columbia [Case No. 8,287].

Dutilh's v. Coursault

8 F. Cas. 159 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Nov 15, 1837

This Court is further sustained in its opinion by that of Lord Chancellor Eldon in the case of Hill v. … And, to support this doctrine, the case of Cambioso v. Maffitt is cited from 2 Wash. C. C. Rep. 103 .

Newton & Muncaster v. Reardon

2 D.C. 49 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Jul 15, 1812

In addition to the eases cited in the argument, the following were noticed by the Court: Dockwray v. Dickenson, Skinner, 640; S. C. Comb. 366; Harman v. Witchlow, Latch, 152; Child v. Sands, Salk. 32; Brown v. … Hedges, Salk. 290 ; Garrett v. Taylor, Esp. N. P. 117.

Garey's v. Union Bank of Georgetown

10 F. Cas. 1 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Dec 15, 1827

Renner, who made the' application to the board, must have known it, if it existed; at least, it is strange if he did not. … Garey was confessed in December term, 1817, and the decision of the Court which caused this alarm to the banks was not until the 11th of June, 1818, in the case of Beeding v. Pic, ( 2 Cranch, C. C. 152 .)

Crease v. Parker

6 F. Cas. 791 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Nov 15, 1807

He also inclined to the opinion that the acknowledgment to Harris was a fact from which the jury might infer an express promise by the defendant subsequent to his emancipation, and before the suit brought See Williams v. … Brown, 3 Bos. & P. 72, Heath, J.’s, opinion.

Harrison v. Boyd

11 F. Cas. 647 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · May 15, 1832

Cox, for the plaintiffs, also cited the case of Harrison v. Gales, special bail of Gilbert C. Russell, in this Court at December term, 1828, ( 3 Cranch, C. C. 376 ,) and Farrow v. … Brown, special bail of Russell, at thp same term; where the plaintiff was a resident of Virginia at the time of Russell’s discharge under the insolvent act of this district, and had then a suit against Russell, pending in

Magruder v. McDonald

16 F. Cas. 488 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · May 15, 1828

The court cited the case of Brown V. … When the court, in the above case of Brown v.

Beall v. Beck

2 F. Cas. 1111 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Dec 15, 1829

If the trunks and clothes of the lodgers should be liable to distress for rent in common boarding-houses, it may be said in the language of Lord Mansfield, in Francis v. Wyatt, 1 W. … Rich, to be occupied as a boarding-house; and she publicly *1117 advertised to keep a boarding-house.

Ex parte Mann

16 F. Cas. 630 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Jul 1, 1860

I shall only particularly mention^ one other case, Le Roy v. Tatham decided, in Judge Nelson’s circuit court and brought, up by appeal, and to be found in [Le Roy v. Tatham] 14 How. [55 U. S.] 156. … Blackstone (Boulton v. Bull, 2 H. Bl. 13, 31, 463, 496, 493, 495, and 213, & Ald 340, 350; Webst. Pat. Cas. 147, 342. 377, 310, 683, 684, 698, 717).

Ex parte Allen

1 F. Cas. 434 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Oct 16, 1860

The three elements of his arranged combination are: The outer shoe, the track-board, and the stop. … To sustain the position he cites the rule of law as laid down by the court in the case of Prouty v. Ruggles, 16 Pet. [41 U. S.] 336.”

United States v. Carbery

2 D.C. 358 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Oct 15, 1822

of aldermen and board of common council, agreeably to the 3d section of the charter. … R. 396; Geter v. Commissioners for Tobacco In spection, 1 Bay, 356 .

Robinson v. Cathcart

20 F. Cas. 985 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Jun 4, 1825

Mildmay v. Hungerford, 2 Vern. 243; Harman v. Cam, 4 Vin. Abr. 387; Wildey v. Coopers Company, 3 P. Wms. 127, note; Atwood v. Lamprey, Id.; Lord Irnham v. Child, 1 Brown, Ch. 92; Langstaffe v. … Adams v. Weare, 1 Brown, Ch. 569.” 1 Madd. 324, 40S.

Ridgway v. Hays

20 F. Cas. 766 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Nov 15, 1836

In accordance with this opinion is that of the commissioners under the Florida treaty, in Sheppard et al. v. Taylor et al. 5 Peters, 685; and of the Supreme Court of the United States, in Comegyss v. … See Ellis v. Lord Gray, in Equity, 6 Simons, 214, where the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury were enjoined from paying an annuity.

Ward v. Corporation of Washington

29 F. Cas. 210 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · May 15, 1832

On the 9th of August, 1831, five warrants were issued by Robert Clarke, Esq. against Ulysses Ward, at the suit of the mayor, board of aldermen, and board of common council of the city of Washington, for a penalty of $10 in … Fendall, for the defendant, then prayed the Court that the judgment upon the reversal should be with costs, and cited Montalet v. Murray, 4 Cranch, 47 ; McIver v.

United States v. Williams

28 F. Cas. 660 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Nov 15, 1836

Bloom, 19 Johns. 456 ; Bockville Turnpike Co. v. Yan Ness [Case No. 11,986], in this court; Mechanics’ Bank v. Minor [Id. 9,-385], also in this court. As to annual election of officers, Mr. Key cited 2 Kent, Comm. 295. … legal board of examiners, &c.