TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hughes v. Davis

George W. Hughes v. John T. Davis

Hughes v. Davis, 8 Md. 271 (1855)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Maryland · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 15, 1855
Judges
Eccleston, Grand, Tuck
Citations
8 Md. 271
Headnotes
The act of Congress of 1804, eh. 56, extending the provisions of the act of 1790, ch. 11, to the records and courts of the respective Territories of the United States, is a constitutional exercise of the legislative power of Congress. This act being constitutional, nil debet is not a proper plea to an action of debt brought in this State upon a judgment recovered in the circuit court for the District of Columbia.
Summary
Appe.al froin the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel county. Debt, by the appellee against the appellant, upon a judgment recovered in the circuit court for the District of Columbia. Plea, nil debet, to which the plaintiff demurred. A record of the judgment, with a transcript of the whole proceedings in the district court, was filed in the case. The court, (Brewer, J.,) sustained the demurrer and gave judgment thereon for the plaintiff, from which the defendant appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Grand

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Lb Grand, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of this court.

This was on action of debt, brought in the circuit court for Anne Arundel county, on a judgment obtained by the appellee against the appellant in the District of Columbia. The defendant pleaded nil debet, to which the plaintiff demurred. The court sustained the demurrer and gave judgment for the plaintiff. Prom this judgment the appeal is taken.

It is conceded that the plea of nil debet is not a proper plea, if the act of March 27th, 1804, be a constitutional exercise of the legislative power of Congress. That act extended the provisions of the act of May 26th, 1790, to the records and courts of the respective Territories of the United States, and countries subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, as well as to the records and courts of the several States.

On the behalf of the appellant it is contended, that Congress had no power to pass this act of 1804: that the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States only authorises Congress to prescribe, by general laws, the manner in which the records and judicial proceedings of the States shall be proved, and that inasmuch as the District of Columbia is not a State, the act of 1790 does not relate to the judgment sued upon in this case.

The necessity of such an enactment as that of 1804 must be conceded by fill, and inasmuch as it has, so far as we are informed, been treated ever since its passage as a constitutional *274 exercise of the power of Congress, we do not feel at liberty to declare it to be otherwise.

In the writings of Justice Story and Chancellor Kent on the constitution, as well as in a great number of decided cases, the act of 1804 is referred to and has been acted upon without the slightest suggestion from any quarter of its unconstitutionality.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1862–1863: 11878–1879: 11880–1881: 11882–1883: 118622026peak 1862 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Savin v. Bond57 Md. 228 (1881)
  2. Turrell v. Warren25 Minn. 9 (1878)
  3. Duvall v. Fearson18 Md. 502 (1862)
  4. Wiggins' Ferry Co. v. Chicago & A. R.11 F. 381 (E.D. Mo. 1882)

Most recent

  1. Wiggins' Ferry Co. v. Chicago & A. R.11 F. 381 (E.D. Mo. 1882)
  2. Savin v. Bond57 Md. 228 (1881)
  3. Turrell v. Warren25 Minn. 9 (1878)
  4. Duvall v. Fearson18 Md. 502 (1862)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list