1. Roman v. Roman's Minors Copy cite
   4 La. 202 Supreme Court of Louisiana July 15, 1832
   Cited by 7

   Mathews, J., delivered the opinion of the court. This suit is brought against the tutor of minors to recover from the succession of their mother a certain sum of money, which the plaintiff alleges to be owing and due to her from said succession, and which the

2. Stoever v. Immell Copy cite
   1 Watts 258 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania November 15, 1832
   Cited by 14

   Per Curiam. If the proceeding were imperfect when the act under which it was begun expired, what has been done since is simply void, and needs no reversal. It has, however, not been thought to be directly examinable here. The books show no instance of it, and

3. Rouquette v. His Creditors Copy cite
   9 La. 154 Supreme Court of Louisiana February 15, 1836
   Not cited

   Martin, J., delivered the opinion of the court. This case comes before .us on the decision of the Parish Court, on an opposition filed by T. Toby, to the tableau of . distribution made by the syndic of the insolvent. The court • ordered Toby to be placed on

4. Graff v. Kip Copy cite
   1 Edw. Ch. 619 New York Court of Chancery April 30, 1833
   Cited by 7

   The Vice-Chancellor. The case of Ex parte Peru Iron Company , 7 Cowen, 540, settles this question. The observations there made by Chief Justice Savage at page 553 are to be taken as more than a mere dictum. I have had a conversation with the Chief Justice; and

5. McLellan v. Richardson Copy cite
   13 Me. 82 Supreme Judicial Court of Maine April 15, 1836
   Cited by 7

   The opinion of the Court, after time taken for advisement, was drawn up by Weston C. J. With regard to the course pursued in the examination of the grand jurors, it must be understood to have been *86 assented to by the counsel for the defendant, and therefore

6. Poorman v. Crane's Administrator Copy cite
   1 Ohio Ch. 347 Ohio Supreme Court June 15, 1833
   Not cited

   Wood, J. We see no error in these proceedings. A simple statement of the facts will show that these transcripts were properly admitted. The security was claimed to be a recognizance of the defendant, and all the judicial proceedings were according to the laws

7. Brown's ex'or v. Higginbotham & Co. Copy cite
   27 Am. Dec. 618 Supreme Court of Virginia December 15, 1834
   Cited by 9

   Tucker, P. The only question of any difficulty in this case, I think, is as to the existence of the partnership; and I am of opinion, that the evidence sufficiently establishes it. Partnership is “a contract between two or more persons for joining together their

8. M'Gee v. Givan Copy cite
   4 Blackf. 16 Indiana Supreme Court May 27, 1835
   Cited by 6

   Stevens, J. M’Gee declared against Givan and Nave in an action of'trespass with force and arms, for entering into his close, breaking his stable door, and taking and leading away two certain geldings. The defendants by their plea admit that they did, in manner

9. Shaw v. Wile Copy cite
   2 Rawle 280 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania January 15, 1830
   Cited by 2

   The opinion of the court was delivered by Huston, J. It was contended here, that from the narr. in this case, it was apparent, that the jury gave damages for a period of time subsequent to the commencement of the action; or, that from what is contained in the

10. Flagler v. Pleiss Copy cite
    3 Rawle 345 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania February 2, 1832
    Cited by 9

    the opinion of the court, in which the circumstances of the case are sufficiently stated, was delivered by Gibson, C. J. This is a plain case. A purchase is made of a lot which at the time, is enclosed. The enclosure contains in depth fifty-one feet,, but the

11. Trevor's Administrators v. Ellenberger's Executors Copy cite
    2 Pen. & W. 94 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September 15, 1830
    Not cited

    The opinion of the Court was delivered by Rogers, J. At the time of the death'of John Tillará, the debts against his estate were of equal grade, and unless something has occurred since, the plaintiffs and defendant are still ’entitled., in the order of payment

12. Commonwealth ex rel. Miller v. Barker Copy cite
    2 Pen. & W. 232 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania October 15, 1830
    Not cited

    Per Curiam. There is nothing in'the agreement like the revival, of the judgment, much less an assent to confess a new judgment that the lien be revived for five years. On the contrary the agreement was to suffer execution to go without a revival. The meaning

13. Brown v. Kelso's Executors Copy cite
    2 Pen. & W. 427 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania June 15, 1831
    Not cited

    The opinion of the court was delivered by Rogers, T. It is impossible to inspect the record, without being satisfied that this is a judgment against John Brown, alone. The suit was brought against the firm, but the writ was served on one only. “Served,” says

14. Turnpike Co. v. Brown Copy cite
    2 Pen. & W. 462 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania June 15, 1831
    Cited by 1

    The opinion of the court was delivered by C-ibson, C. J. This is the first instance of an attempt to enforce the payment of tolls by other means than -that prescribed in the act of incorporation. The provisions of the act for making a road from Harrisburg to

15. Keck v. Appleback Copy cite
    2 Pen. & W. 465 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania June 15, 1831
    Not cited

    Per Curiam. In Welsh v. Crawford the judgment was offered collaterally. Here it was offered as the' foundation of the proceeding, and its competency did not depend on any abstract rule of *466 evidence, but on the provisions of the act of assembly, which gives

16. M'Connel v. Hall Copy cite
    3 Pen. & W. 53 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September 15, 1831
    Not cited

    The opinion of the court was delivered by Gibson, C. J. An action of covenant for not conveying pursuant to the articles of purchase, is a remedy, not to enforce the execution of the contract, but to recover nominal or substantial damages for the breach of

17. Nichols v. Rummel Copy cite
    3 Pen. & W. 195 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania October 15, 1831
    Not cited

    The opinion of the court was delivered by Kennedy, J In the case of Hagerty v. Fager, for the use of Wilson, decided by this court at the last Sunbury Term, 2 Penn. Rep. 533, in an action of debt brought upon a bond given for part of the purchase money of a

18. Romig's Appeal Copy cite
    8 Watts 415 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania July 15, 1839
    Cited by 3

    Per Curiam. Of a part of the premises named in the writ and inquisition, the orphans’ court had not jurisdiction. The proper course, to divide the estate of an intestate tenant in common, was pointed out in Feather a. Strohœcker, 3 Penn. Rep. 505, and ought .

19. Loud v. Bull Copy cite
    1 Whart. 238 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania February 6, 1836
    Not cited

    Per Curiam. As the judgment was confessed by the, administratrix, for a debt incurred after the death of the decedent, it was *241 suffered by her clearly in her own right; her being named as administratrix being but description or surplusage; and a sale under

20. Kemmerer v. Young Copy cite
    5 Rawle 175 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania March 30, 1835
    Cited by 2

    The opinion of the court was delivered by Sergeant, J. By the act of the 21st of March, 1806, sec. 6, “ the defendant may alter his plea or defence on or before the trial of the cause.” As this cause was open for trial when the additional plea was filed, it

Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.