Case law

United States v. The Franklin

18 F. Cas. 830 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1812

It appears, that four or five hogsheads of rum and molasses had been taken on board previous to that time. … S. v. The Franklin [Case No. 15,160] stands on the same principles, I also affirm that -decree, and certify as above. So also the case of U. S. v. The Amphitrite [Id. 14,444].

The Harmony

11 F. Cas. 556 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1812

Sackett v. Thompson, 2 Johns. 206 ; Harris v. Wadsworth, 3 Johns. 257 . In revenue informations, such amendments were formerly denied (Edgell v. … Kaye, 6 Term R. 543; Maddock v. Hammet, 7 Term R. 55. But in such cases, the court will not admit an amendment, if it be to introduce a new substantive cause of action, or new charge against the defendant. Id.; Petre v.

Sturgess v. Cary

23 F. Cas. 317 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1854

In support of these views, it is necessary only to refer to the two cases of Columbian Ins Co. v. Ashby, 13 Pet. [38 U. S.] 331, and Barnard v. Adams, 10 How. [51 U. S.] 270. … Shipp. 507; Doane v. Keating, 12 Leigh, 391 .

Jay v. Almy

13 F. Cas. 387 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1846

See cases in Allen v. Blunt [Id. 217]; Taylor v. Carpenter [Id. 13,785]. … And though Jay is not justified in claiming wages of the captain, as he entered on board the vessel upon shares, yet, under the contract in such cases, he is entitled to his portion of the oil and bone then on board and saved

Webb v. Goldsmith

127 F. 572 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Jan 20, 1904

Waterman v. Mackenzie, 138 U. S. 255 , 11 Sup. Ct. 334, 34 L. Ed. 923 ; Moore v. Marsh, 7 Wall. 515 , 19 L. Ed. 37 ; Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. 477 , 13 L. Ed. 504 ; Hayward v. Andrews (C. … Allnut v. Lancaster (C. C.) 76 Fed. 131 .

United States v. Stone & Downer Co.

171 F. 293 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 11, 1909

The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed, upon the authority of Boericke & Runyon Company v. United States (C. C.) 126 Fed. 1018 . … The government contends that the evidence before the Board in the case at bar, is not in accord with the facts presumably found by the court in its opinion in Boericke & Runyon Company v. United States.

Tobey v. Leonard

23 F. Cas. 1324 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1861

St. 527; Browne, St. Frauds, p. 272, § 267. … Browne, St. Frauds, p. 272, § 266; Ledford v. Ferrell’s Adm’r, 12 Ired. 285 ; Clabaugh v. Byerly, 7 Gill, 354 ; Boyd v. Stone, 11 Mass. 342 ; Woods v. Wallace, 22 Pa. St. 171; Cox v. Peele, 2 Brown, Ch. 267.

Beane v. The Mayurka

2 F. Cas. 1161 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1854

In Stainback v. Rae, 14 How. [55 U. … This is settled in the negative by the case of Cutler v. Rae, 7 How. [48 U. S.] 729.

Potter v. Suffolk Ins. Co.

19 F. Cas. 1186 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1835

See Brazier v. Clap, 5 Mass. 1 ; Cleveland v. Union Ins. Co., 8 Mass. 321 ; Ellery v. New England Ins. Co., 8 Pick. 14 , 22. … In Kingsford v.

United States v. Certain Hogsheads of Molasses

25 F. Cas. 365 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1852

S. v. Nourse, 6 Pet. [31 U. S.] 496), that the act made no change in respect to such appeals, except to reduce the necessary sum from three .hundred dollars to forty dollars. In The Montgomery v. … These 183 casks must have been put on board after the residue, from their place of stowage. ■ It is therefore a fair, not to say necessary presumption, that the whole-was on board of the vessel when it sailed from Ponce,

The Invincible

13 F. Cas. 72 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1814

S. i v. Peters, 3 Dall. [3 U. S.] 121; Hudson v. j Guestier, 4 Cranch [8 U. S.] 293. … Glass v. The Betsy, 3 Dall. [3 U. S.] 6; Del Col v. Arnold, Id. 333.

Badger v. Badger

2 F. Cas. 331 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1862

Jur. (8th Ed.) 1528; Pember v. Mathers, 1 Brown, Ch. 52; Walton v. Hobbs, 2 Atk. 19; Clark’s Ex’rs v. Van Riemsdyk, 9 Cranch, [13 U. S.] 160. … Sullivan v. Sullivan, [supra;] Andrew v. Wrigley, 4 Brown, Ch. 125; Beckford v. Wade, 17 Ves. 94, 97; Jenkins v. Pye, 12 Pet. [37 U. S.] 241; Hovenden v. Annesley, 2 Schoales & L. 636; Bowman v. Wathen, 1 How. [42 U.

In re Massachusetts General Hospital

95 F. 973 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Jul 7, 1899

The board of general appraisers in that case, following the distinction between “philosophical” and “mechanical,” laid down in Robertson v. … The decision of the board of general appraisers is reversed.

Brennan v. United States

129 F. 837 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Apr 23, 1904

The opinion of the Board of General Appraisers, which now comes before the court, is clearly stated, and puts the decision upon proper grounds. In Roche v. United States (C. … Arthur v. Stephani, 96 U. S. 125 , 24 L. Ed. 771 ; Reiche v. Smythe, 13 Wall. 162 , 20 L. Ed. 566 ; Movius v. Arthur, 95 U. S. 144 , 24 L. Ed. 420 . In Homer v. The Collector, 1 Wall. 486 , 17 L.

Wonson v. Peterson

30 F. Cas. 421 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Mar 11, 1878

In the ease of Tarr v. … The testimony of Brown and Gardner, when carefully considered, does not prove an anticipation of the Tarr and Wonson invention.

In re Chase

48 F. 630 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Jan 11, 1892

The grounds upon which the board based their decision are set forth in the prior case of Central Vt. R. Co. v. Collector of Burlington, (G. A. 280,) where the same question arose. … Hartranft v. Meyer, 135 U. S. 237 , 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 751; Elliott v. Swurtwout, 10 Pet. 137, 152 .

Crosby v. Folger

6 F. Cas. 877 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1833

THE COURT, upon the authority of Mason v. Waite, 1 Pick. 452 , directed several costs to be allowed to the defendants. … See Brown v. Stearns, 13 Mass. 536 .

Heckscher v. Binney

11 F. Cas. 1016 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1847

Smith [Case No. 14,115]; Brown v. Noyes [supra]. In settling this question of jurisdiction, we must look to the law of congress for power, and not to state laws. … Thus, in Brown v.

Ford v. Bancroft

85 F. 457 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Feb 19, 1898

Justice Brown in Deering v. Harvester Works, 155 U. S. 286, 295 , 15 Sup. … Co. v. Hollingsworth & Whitney Co., 5 C. C. A. 490 , 56 Fed. 224, 227 . But, whatever were the views of Mr.

Trecothick v. Austin

24 F. Cas. 165 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1825

See Scott v. Hancock, 13 Mass. 102 ; Brown v. Anderson, 13 Mass. 201 ; Ex parte Allen, 15 Mass. 58 ; Emerson v. Thompson, 16 Mass. 429 . … See, also, Quintine v. Yard, 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 74; Walley v. Walley, 1 Vern. 487; Fell v. Brown, 2 Brown, Ch. 278.