Case law

The Independence

13 F. Cas. 7 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1855

Most of the principles upon which the first two questions depend, were quite fully stated in the case of Hennessey v. The Versailles [Case No. 6,365]. … Hennessey v. The Versailles [supra]; The Reward, 1 W. Rob. - Adm. 174; The Princess Alice, 3 W. Rob. Adm. 138.

Kemp v. Nickerson

66 F. 682 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Mar 20, 1895

Broderick’s Will, 21 Wall. 503 ; Marsh v. Whitmore, Id. 178; Badger v. Badger, 2 Wall. 87 ; Godden v. Kimmell, 99 U. S. 201 ; Brown v. County of Buena Vista, 95 U. S. 157 ; Speidel v. Henrici, 120 U. S. 377 , 7 Sup. … Railroad Co., 17 Wall. 78 ; Hammond v. Hopkins, 143 U. S. 224 , 12 Sup. Ct. 418; Hume v. Beale’s Executrix, 17 Wall. 336 ; Mackall v. Casilear, 137 U. S. 556 , 11 Sup. Ct. 178; Stearns v. Page, 7 How. 818 ; Hanner v.

Woodworth v. Sherman

30 F. Cas. 586 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1844

Grantham v. Hawley, Hob. 132. And this doctrine was fully recognized by Lord Eldon in the case of Curtis v. Auber, 1 Jac. & W. 526, 532. … [For other eases involving this patent, see note to Bicknell v. Todd, Case No. 1,389.]

Stone & Downer Co. v. United States

147 F. 603 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Jul 10, 1906

Magone v. Luckemeyer, 139 U. S. 612 , 11 Sup. Ct. 651, 35 L. Ed. 298 ; Seeberger v. Farwell, 139 U. S. 608 , 11 Sup. Ct. 650, 35 L. Ed. 297 ; Merritt v. Welsh, 104 U. S. 694, 707 , 26 L. Ed. 896 ; United States v. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers, overruling the petitioners’ protest, is affirmed.

Derby v. Jacques

7 F. Cas. 521 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1860

Homer v. Brown, 16 How. [ 57 U. S. 354 ; Morgan v. Bliss, 2 Mass. 113 ; Knox v. Waldoborough, 5 Me. 185 ; Bridge v. Sumner, 1 Pick. 371 : Wade v. Howard, 8 Pick. 353 . … A writ of right was a proper remedy in the courts of Massachusetts, as at common law, prior to that period; and it was held by the supreme court, in the case of Homer v. Brown, 16 How. [57 U.

Hazard v. Durant

25 F. 26 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Sep 17, 1885

The material allegations contained in this bill sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court in Hazard v. Durant, 19 Fed. Rep. 471. The present hearing was had upon three pleas in bar filed by the defendants. … Pl. § 654; Whitbread v. Brockhurst, 1 Brown, Ch. 415; Didier v. Davison, 2 Sandf. Ch. 61. The first plea in bar is sustained, and the bill dismissed.

Patten v. Darling

18 F. Cas. 1306 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1859

Co. v. Ashby, 13 Pet. [38 U. S.] 343; Barnard v. Adams, 10 How. [51 U. S.] 302. … Caze v. Reilly [Case No. 2,538]; Sims v. Gurney, 4 Bin. 513 ; Gray v. Wain, 2 Serg. & R. 229.

United States v. Hills

26 F. Cas. 322 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 7, 1878

Leighton v. Brown, 98 Mass. 516 : McCluskey v. Cromwell. 11 N. Y. 593 . … Abbott v. Wilmot, 22 Vt. 437 ; Evans v. Beckwith, 37 Vt. 285 ; Simmons v. Almy, 103 Mass. 36 .

States v. The Thomas W. Haven

3 F. 347 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Jul 17, 1880

St. § 4515,) making it penal to receive on board any vessel a seaman who had been engaged contrary to the provisions of that statute, must have a meaning. … S. v. The Grace Lothrop, 95 U. S. 527 . There is another point in this case like the principal one in The Grace Lothrop , but not identical with it.

Fay v. Montgomery

8 F. Cas. 1112 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1852

Glass v. The Betsy, 3 Dall. [3 U. S.] 6; Talbot v. Jansen, Id. 133; Del Col v. Arnold, Id. 333; Maley v. Shattuck, 3 Cranch [7 U. S.] 458; Jennings v. Carson, 4 Cranch [8 U. S.] 2; The Anna-Maria, 2 Wheat [15 U. … This principle is too obviously just, to require the support of authority; but it will be found to have been laid down and applied in the case of Wilkes v. Dinsman, 7 How. [48 U. S.) 89, and Dinsman v.

United States v. Peterson

27 F. Cas. 515 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1846

S. v. Sharp [Case No. 16,204]; U. S. v. Bladen [Id. 14,606]: U. S. v. Cassedy [Id. 14.745]; U. S. v. Smith [Id. 16,344]; U. S. v. Hemmer [Id. 15.345]; U. S. v. Savage [Id. 16,225]; TJ. S. v. Kelly, 11 Wheat. [24 U. … , or unlawfully to confine the master; or, as in the second count in this indictment, “to assemble with others on board in a tumultuous and mutinous manner.”

General Electric Co. v. Re-New Lamp Co.

121 F. 164 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Feb 25, 1903

Davis Electric Works v. Edison Electric Light Co., 8 C. C. A. 615 , 60 Fed. 276 ; Edison Electric Light Co. v. Davis Electrical Works (C. C.) 58 Fed. 878 ; Goodyear Shoe Machinery Co. v. Jackson, 50 C. C. … See Coats v. Merrick Thread Co., 149 U. S. 562 , 13 Sup. Ct. 966, 37 L. Ed. 847 .

Regis v. United Drug Co.

180 F. 201 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 28, 1910

Ed. 435 ; Peninsular Iron Co. v. Stone, 121 U. S. 631 , 7 Sup. Ct. 1010, 30 L. Ed. 1020 ; Graves v. Corbin, 132 U. S. 571 , 10 Sup. Ct. 196, 33 L. Ed. 462 ; Brown v. Trousdale, 138 U. S. 389 , 11 Sup. Ct. 308, 34 L. … Ed. 195 ; Cal. v. South. Pac. Co., 157 U. S. 239 , 14 Sup. Ct. 1138, 38 L. Ed. 702 ; Gardner v. Brown, 21 Wall. 36 , 22 L.

Bellows v. Hallowell & Augusta Bank

3 F. Cas. 144 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1819

Rex v. Hayes, 2 Ld. Raym. 1518; Rex v. Huggins, Id. 1574, 2 Strange, 882; Rex v. Woodfall, 5 Burrows, 2661; Goodtitle v. Jones, 7 Term R. 47; Bird v. Appleton, 1 East, 111, note a; Gibson v. Hunter, 2 H. … Bl. 187; Town of Shrewsbury v. Kynaston, 7 Brown, Parl. Cas. 396, 2 Strange, 1051.

Bradstreet v. Neptune Ins.

3 F. Cas. 1184 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1839

It is sufficient on this subject to refer to the cases of Croudson v. Leonard, 4 Cranch [8 U. S,] 434; Rose v. Himely, Id. 241; and Hudson v. Guestier, 6 Cranch [10 U. S.] 281. … The doctrine in Calvert v. Bovill, 7 Term R. 523, and Christie v. Secretan, 8 Term R. 192, seems to me on this point entirely correct and satisfactory. In Maley v. Shattuck, 3 Cranch [7 U.

Woodman v. Stimpson

30 F. Cas. 507 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Jun 15, 1866

Browne.—I understand your honor to leave that to the jury, to find on the description. THE COUltT.—Yes, taking the ihaehine as described and drawn. So of the other parts. … Co. v. Guild, Case No. 17,981.]

Caspary v. Carter

84 F. 416 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Dec 14, 1897

An affidavit of so general a character fails to sufficiently raise the presumption of materiality required under this statute in Iasigi v. Brown, 1 Curt. 401 , Fed. Cas. No. 6,993, and in Merchants’ Nat. Bank v. … Smith v. Duke of Beaufort, 1 Hare, 507, 520; Wig. Ev. par. 224 et seq.; Daniell, Ch. Prac. *579.

Suddard v. American Motor Co.

163 F. 852 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Aug 13, 1908

Barnes v. Ryder, Fed. Cas. No. 1,020; Barnes v. Steamship Co., Fed. Cas. No. 1,021. … C.) 19 Blatchf. 377 , 8 Fed. 519 ; Hake v. Brown (C. C.) 37 Fed. 783, 785 ; Draper v. Wattles (C. C.) 81 Fed. 374 ; Metallic Ext. Co. v. Brown, 110 Fed. 665 , 49 C. C. A. 147 ; Fairbanks v. Stickney, 123 Fed. 79 , 59 C.

Foster v. Simmons

9 F. Cas. 573 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · Oct 7, 1878

Davies v. Arthur, 96 U. S. 758 . … Usually the boarding officer, as before remarked, boards the vessel on her arrival, and obtains the manifest and delivers it to the collector; but if the boarding officer does not perform that duty, then the act of congress

Scovill v. Shaw

21 F. Cas. 856 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · May 15, 1878

Suffice it to say that it is now settled that the statute of limitations is as applicable in the national as in the ■state courts (Brown v. Hiatts. 15 Wall. [82 U. S.] 183; Ross v. Jones, 22 Wall. [89 U. … Hall v. U. S. Ins. Co., 5 Gill, 484 ; Henry v. Vermillion, etc. R. Co., 17 Ohio, 187; Ogilvie v. Insurance Co., 22 How. [63 U. S.] 380; Adler v. Milwaukee Patent Brick Manuf'g Co., 13 Wis. 61 ; Mann v. Pentz, 2 Sandf.