Case law

Snowden v. Pierce

22 F. Cas. 737 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Jul 1, 1861

All the decisions of the office, whether, by examiners or the old board of appeals, were, in law, the decisions of the commissioner, when sanctioned by him. … The principles to govern it have been carefully considered by me in the case of Lovering v. Dutcher [Case No. 8,553], decided by me May 24, 1861, to which I refer, and the authorities cited in it. According to Mr.

Levering v. Bank of Columbia

15 F. Cas. 413 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Dec 15, 1804

said ship and prepare her to receive a cargo as soon as the said owners should be able to procure a freight for her, and that he was thereby to receive for his wages one dollar a day and be found, while he continued on board … See Ramsay v. Allegre, 12 Wheat. [25 U. S.] 611, Judge Johnson’s opinion, and Clinton v. The Hannah [Case No. 2,898]; Shrewsbury v. The Two Friends [Id. 12,819]; Bridgeman’s Case, Hob. 11; Justin v. Ballam, 2 Ld.

Richard v. Van Meter

20 F. Cas. 682 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Dec 15, 1827

In the case of Negro Joseph Brown v. Wingard, this Court in April, 1822, ( 2 Cranch, C. C. 300 ,) decided that a contract between a master and his slave, could not be enforced at law or in equity.

Farmers Bank of Alexandria v. Hooff

8 F. Cas. 1032 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · May 15, 1833

The first case which will be mentioned is that of Brown v. Cutter, T. Raym. Rep. 428. The words of the will were, ! … Also, to the following cases: Brown v. Cutter, T. Raym. 428; Gordon v. Adolphus, 3 Br. Parl. Ca. 306; Chester v. Painter, 2 P. Will. 336; Ibbetson v. Beckwith, Ca. Temp. Talbot, 157; Bamfield v. Popham, 1 P.

United States v. Williams

5 D.C. 62 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Nov 15, 1836

State v.Wayman, 2 Gill & Johns. 278; Phillips v. Wickam, 1 Paige, Chanc. Rep. 590, confirms 10 Mod. 346; The King v. The Mayor and Burgesses of Tregenny, 8 Mod. 127. That there was no board of examiners de jure. … Prowse, Mayor of Truro, 1 Str. 625; Hall v. Gough, 1 Har. & Johns, 122; Bank of Michigan v. Williams, 5 Wendell, 478 ; The King v. Hughes, 4 B. & C. 368, 377, 378; Symmers v. Regem, Cowp. 507; Rex v. Mein, 3 T.

Coombe v. Meade

6 F. Cas. 467 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · May 3, 1825

In the case of Brinkershoff v. Brown, 4 Johns. Ch. 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. … Williams v. Brown. 4 Johns. Ch. C82, and McDermott v. Strong, Id. 687.

Davis v. Van Zandt

2 D.C. 208 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Jun 15, 1820

(But see Wetzel v. Bussard, 11 Wheat. 309 ; Read v. Wilkin son, 2 Wash. C. C. Rep. 514 ; Lonsdale v. Brown, 3 Wash. C. C. Rep. 404 .)

United States v. White

28 F. Cas. 572 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Mar 15, 1838

.; Harris v. Tippet, and Rex v. Yewin, 2 Campbell, 638; Rex v. Watson, 2 Starkie’s Cases, 116; People v, Herrick, 13 Johnson, 82 ; Resp. v. Gibbs, 3 Yeates, 429 ; Bell's case, 1 Browne’s Rep. 376; Stout v. … Russell, 2 Yeates, 334 ; Galbraith v. Eicleberger, 3 Yeates, 515 ; State v. Bailey, 1 Penn. Rep. 415; Jackson v. Humphrey, 2 Penn. Rep. 728; Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 144 ; Peter Cooke's case, 1 Salk. 153; S.

Holmead v. Smith

5 D.C. 343 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Nov 15, 1837

J., said that this Court had entertained jurisdiction, by certiorari, in forcible entry and detainer in- several cases, and referred to the case of United States v. … C. 474 ) ; and the case of the Lord Proprietor v. Brown et al. 1 Har. & McHenry, 428.

Tyler v. Walker

24 F. Cas. 469 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Jan 3, 1851

In the case of Brown, paymaster of the same corps, v. … Besides in Osbern v. Bank of U. S., 9 Wheat. [22 U.

Conner v. Levering

6 F. Cas. 308 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Apr 15, 1819

THE COURT instructed the jury, that if they should be satisfied, by the evidence, that the bale of goods was delivered to the plaintiff, or put on board of the vessel, and was lost by the negligence or fraud of the p'ain-tiff … See Crammer v. The Fair American [Case No. 3,317]; and Lewis v. Davis. 3 Johns. IS. CRANCH, Chief Judge, gave no opinion upon the last point.

Newton v. Reardon

18 F. Cas. 134 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Jul 15, 1812

P. 36; Leglise v. Champante, 2 Strange, 820; 2 Bl. Comm. 186; Co. Litt. §§ 314, 316. 317; Harrison v. Barnby, 5 Term R. 246; Martin v. Crompe, 1 Ld. Raym. 340; 3 Bac. Abr. 706; Cutting v. Derby, 2 W. Bl. 1077; Cooke v. … In addition to the cases cited in the argument, the following were noticed by the court: Dockwray v. Dickenson, Skin. 640, Comb. 366; Harman v. Whiteblow, Latch, 152; Child v. Sands, 1 Salk. 32; Brown v.

United States v. Anderson

4 D.C. 476 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Nov 15, 1834

C. 605 ;) Peake’s Ev. 94; Abrahams v. Bunn, 4 Burr. 2255; Smith v. Prager, 7 T. R. 60; Bent v. Baker, 3 Id. 27; Resp v. Ross, 2 Dall. 239 . … E. 96, 116; 4 Starkie, 770, 771; and the following cases in this Court: United States v. Suter, November, 1807; Bayne’s case, December, 1830; Brown’s case, December, 1827, ( 3 Cranch, C.

Lloyd v. Scott

15 F. Cas. 720 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · May 15, 1832

Richards qui tarn. v. Brown, Cowp. 770. This was a case of an annuity forced upon a needy debtor, wl)o carne to borrow money. … The case of Cogswell v. Brown, 1 Mass.

Hunt v. Howe

12 F. Cas. 918 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Feb 15, 1855

In the same case of Shaw v. … Wood v. Zimmer, 1 Holt, N. P. 60. In Pennock v. Dialogue, 2 Pet. [27 U.

White v. Burns

5 D.C. 123 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Mar 15, 1837

Bradley cited Theobold on Principal and Surety, 164, 184; Hartley v. Brown and Nicholls, 16 Johns. 70 ; 2 Wheeler, 212; Woodhull v. Holmes, 10 Johns. 240 ; Skill and Hite v. Warren, 15 Id. 270 . Mr.

Slacum v. Smith

22 F. Cas. 316 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Dec 9, 1818

It does not appear to amount to desertion, and if it did, the forfeiture is waived by receiving him again on board. … See the case of Swift v. The Happy Return [Case No. 13,697]. I therefore think that judgment should be entered up for the plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff.

Slacum v. Smith

2 D.C. 149 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Apr 15, 1818

It does not appear to amount to desertion, and if it did, the forfeiture is waived by receiving him again on board. … See the case of Swift, Hastings, & others v. Ship Happy Return, 1 Peter’s Ad. Decisions, 253. I therefore think that judgment should be entered up for the plaintiff. December 9, 1818. Judgment for plaintiff.

Bank of the United States v. Lee

2 F. Cas. 702 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Nov 15, 1837

Lord Chancellor Thurlow in Beckett v. Cordley, 1 Brown, Ch. 358. But if the bill had charged them with a fraudulent collusion at the time of Mr. R. B. Lee’s deed of trust to Mr. … S. v. Lee, 13 Pet. (38 U. S.) 107.]

Vowell v. West

28 F. Cas. 1309 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Nov 15, 1830

Harper, on the 18th of May, 1827, shipped, on board the brig Sea Horse, for Rio Grande, a cargo of flour, &c., consigned to the defendant, (who went out in the brig as supercargo,) to be sold for account and risk of J. & … Drinkwater v. Goodwin, Cowp. 251; Hammond v. Barclay, 2 East, 227; Lickbarraw v. Mason, 6 Id. 28, note. We are, therefore, of opinion that the complainant’s bill ought to be dismissed.