-
1 D.C. 460 D.D.C. November 15, 1807Not cited
But the Court (Duckett, J., absent,) were of opinion that the defendants’ 6th plea and rejoinder were good, and that the plaintiff’s replication was bad, being of opinion that a material misrepresentation of the subject of insurance might be pleaded in bar
-
1 D.C. 465 D.D.C. November 15, 1807Not cited
In a deposition the deponent said, he “ believed the goods ivere for the house of McClean & Winterberry, as they were shipped to McClean & Winterberry at Alexandria.”
-
1 D.C. 465 D.D.C. November 15, 1807Not cited
Cranch, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. (Duckett, J., absent.) Before the fictitious action of ejectment was devised by the courts, and took the place of real actions, the true action of ejectment was brought only by the termor himself against
-
3 S.C.L. 32 U.S. District Court July 1, 1801Not cited
By the court. Johnson, J. The national ■ government may * pass Such laws as may be proper and necessary to avoid the mis. chiefs arising from the counterfeiting, and passing, as true, the forged bills of credit of the bank of the nation; but it cannot be maintained
-
1 D.C. 407 D.D.C. June 15, 1807Not cited
The Court (Duckett, J., absent,) refused to admit the certificate in evidence. The defendant then offered a like certificate signed by Richard Jamieson, collector of the tax for the county of Washington, dated June 12th, 1807, which was also rejected by the
-
1 D.C. 410 D.D.C. June 15, 1807Not cited
The Court directed the jury that if .they believed the facts to be so, the defendant had committed no offence under the by-law. That it was no offence, under the by-law, to burn bricks in a clamp.
-
1 D.C. 414 D.D.C. June 15, 1807
*415 On the 25th of June he was ordered into Court; and the Court again explained to him his offence and its punishment, and told him he had an opportunity, if he pleased, of retracting his plea, and of putting himself upon his trial; and asked him if he still
-
1 D.C. 433 D.D.C. July 15, 1807Not cited
The Court permitted the general replication to be withdrawn and the special replication to be filed, being of opinion that the exception did not. apply to actions of account only, but to assump-sit upon open accounts. See the cases cited in notes to the case
-
1 D.C. 443 D.D.C. July 15, 1807Not cited
The plaintiff merely states her apprehension.
-
1 D.C. 502 D.D.C. July 15, 1808Not cited
The Court (nem. con.) refused to give the instruction. A bill of exceptions was taken; but a writ-of error was never prosecuted.
-
1 D.C. 509 D.D.C. July 15, 1808Not cited
Cranch, C. J., suggested a doubt whether the defendant should be permitted to go into proof that the petitioner is not a creditor, supposing it to be a matter to be decided ex parte at the time of the insolvent’s application, and that primd facie evidence is
-
1 D.C. 608 D.D.C. December 15, 1809Not cited
The Court was of opinion that the corporation of Georgetown could not lawfully pass such an ordinance, imposing a penalty on hack-owners residing out of the town of Georgetown for bringing into Georgetown from elsewhere passengers, under the circumstances in
-
1 D.C. 608 D.D.C. December 15, 1809Not cited
The Court refused to issue the habeas corpus, saying that they would not in this ex parte summary mode undertake, to decide the question of law. Mr. Wilson, if he chose to run the risk of involving his sureties, might depart; or if the marshal was satisfied,
-
1 D.C. 609 D.D.C. December 15, 1809Not cited
The Court (nem. cm.') was of opinion that the Act of Maryland did not apply to taxes laid by the corporation of Washington ; and refused to quash the replevin.
-
1 D.C. 544 D.D.C. June 15, 1809Not cited
The Court (Duckett, J., absent,) adjudged the replication to be bad ; observing that if a British creditor covers his debt under the name of a citizen he must take citizen’s law.
-
1 D.C. 549 D.D.C. July 15, 1809Not cited
The Coukt, also, at the prayer of the defendant, instructed the jury, that if they should be of opinion that the cheese was eaten by the rats, or otherwise lost, so that it did not come to the use of the defendant, the plaintiff cannot recover in this form.
-
1 D.C. 550 D.D.C. July 15, 1809Not cited
The Court allowed the costs of taking the depositions to be taxed in the bill of costs.
-
1 D.C. 569 D.D.C. July 15, 1809Not cited
The Court refused the ninth plea now offered by the defendants, because the substance of it was tendered‘as an issue, by the plaintiff in a former stage of the suit, and rejected by the defendants, who chose to demur; and having had judgment against them in the
-
1 D.C. 570 D.D.C. July 15, 1809Not cited
The Court, (having since July, 1807, decided in suits at law that when an amendment is allowed on payment of costs, the payment of costs is not a condition precedent, but may be enforced, or await the event of the suit,) — 'decided, in this case, that the amended
-
1 D.C. 571 D.D.C. November 15, 1809Not cited
The Court was of opinion that a lawyer’s fee should be taxed against the complainants, although they styled themselves executors. The defendants having denied that they were executors, have thrown the burden of proof on the plaintiffs. And by dismissing their
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.