| Title | Citation | Year | Summary | Most Relevant | Type | Status |
| Shackelford v. Newbill |
Not Reported in S.E. Rptr., Special Court of Appeals of Virginia (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
|
|
Cases |
|
| Shannon v. Fuller |
20 Ga. 566, Supreme Court of Georgia (August 01, 1856) |
1856 |
[1.] Is an administrator a competent witness to prove the failure of consideration of a draft drawn by his intestate, he having no personal interest in the case, and the estate in his hands being sufficient to pay the debt and cost, if recovered? It is fully settled, that an interest in the event of the suit, however small, will render a witness... |
|
Cases |
|
| Sharp's Ex'r v. Dunavan |
17 B.Mon. 223, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (July 01, 1856) |
1856 |
A portion of the land of F. C. Sharp, viz: about thirty-four out of one hundred forty acres, having been included within the extended boundary of the town of Hopkinsville, as defined by an act of 1846, brought under the consideration of this court in the case of Cheyney v. Hooser, 9 B. Mon. 330, Sharp refused to pay the taxes assessed by the town... |
|
Cases |
|
| Shelton v. Marshall |
16 Tex. 344, Supreme Court of Texas (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
We hold it to be clear and indisputable that every state has the right to decide for itself all questions of its own local internal policy, and to declare the meaning and effect of its own constitution and laws. Whether they are in harmony with the constitution and laws of the United States, may be a different question; that question does not arise... |
|
Cases |
|
| Sickles v. Gloucester Co |
3 Wall.Jr.C.C. 186, Circuit Court, ED Pennsylvania (April 01, 1856) |
1856 |
This was a question as to the mode of taking evidence in equity suits in the federal courts; and arose upon a bill in equity for the infringement of a patent. The case was thus: The thirtieth section of the act of September 24, 1789, which organized the courts of the United States, and is commonly called the judiciary act, enacts that the mode of... |
|
Cases |
|
| Siemssen v. Bofer |
6 Cal. 250, Supreme Court of California (July 01, 1856) |
1856 |
This was an action of ejectment in the Court below. The plaintiffs are non-resident aliens; and the only question involved, is whether, in such capacity, they can maintain an action of ejectment in the Courts of this State. By treaty stipulations between the United States and the Hanseatic towns of Lubeck, Bremen and Hamburg, it is provided: That... |
|
Cases |
The case or administrative decision has some negative history, but has not been reversed or overruled. |
| Sims v. McLure |
8 Rich.Eq. 286, Court of Appeals of Equity of South Carolina (May 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Contracts of one of unsound mind, made before the appointment of a committee, held valid where no undue advantage was taken of him. |
|
Cases |
|
| Singleton's Heirs v. Kelly |
11 La.Ann. 647, Supreme Court of Louisiana (July 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the District Court of the parish of Morehouse, Barry, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Slade v. Little |
20 Ga. 371, Supreme Court of Georgia (June 01, 1856) |
1856 |
[1.] The charge of the Court was, That if the defendant represented Eli Fenn as good for his debts and solvent, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover, if they find it to be proven that he was insolvent, and that defendant knew it at the time of the sale. The evidence on the point as to the representation, was that of one McCoy, and was as... |
|
Cases |
|
| Slaughter v. Commonwealth |
13 Gratt. 767, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (February 07, 1856) |
1856 |
(Absent ALLEN, P.) 1. An indictment against S for keeping an office and transacting business as agent of the Protection insurance company of Hartford, incorporated and authorized by the state of Connecticut, without having a license therefor, against the act, &c. does not state that the said company is an insurance company. This is cured by the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Smith v. Dunwoody |
19 Ga. 237, Supreme Court of Georgia (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
[1.] James Smith left to the caveator, his wife, Jane Smith, for life, $500 annually, to be paid her with the annuity left her by her former husband; the choice of any five of his house servants; the right to occupy any of the places he might die possessed of, with twenty acres of land, and the buildings attached thereto, including the furniture... |
|
Cases |
The case or administrative decision has some negative history, but has not been reversed or overruled. |
| Smith v. Hamilton |
10 Rich. 44, Court of Appeals of Law of South Carolina (November 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Where a female brings an action of slander for saying of her that she is the mother of a mulatto child, she need not aver in her declaration that she is unmarried, or that she is married to a white man, or that she is a white woman. Where a female sues in her own name, the defendant by pleading the general issue, admits her to be a feme sole; and a... |
|
Cases |
|
| Smith v. Strahan |
16 Tex. 314, Supreme Court of Texas (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
It is a general rule that the trust of a legal estate, whether taken in the names of the purchaser and others jointly, or in the names of others without that of the purchaser, whether in one name or several, whether jointly or successively, results to the one who advances the purchase money; the presumption being against a gift. [20 Tex. 389; 21... |
|
Cases |
The case or administrative decision has some negative history, but has not been reversed or overruled. |
| Socum v. State |
1 Houst. 204 (April 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Covenant will not lie in this state, on a contract to be performed in Pennsylvania, with a scrawl and the word seal in the locus sigilli, tho', by the law of that state, this constitutes a... |
|
Trial Court Orders |
|
| Soggins v. Heard |
2 George 426, High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi (April 01, 1856) |
1856 |
1. TRUST: STATUTE OF FRAUDS.-It is well settled that when a party agrees, before the sale, with the judgment debtor, whose land has been levied on, that he will purchase it and give the debtor the benefit of the purchase, that the agreement is binding, and not within the Statute of Frauds; and a purchaser, under such circumstances, is a trustee for... |
|
Cases |
|
| Solibellas v. Consolidated Ass'n |
11 La.Ann. 682, Supreme Court of Louisiana (August 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the District Court of the parish of Rapides, Cushman, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Spears v. Burton |
2 George 547, High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi (October 01, 1856) |
1856 |
1. EVIDENCE: SURVEY: PLAT AND CERTIFICATE.A plat and certificate of a survey made in pursuance of an order of court, directing the survey of the lands in controversy, if they show generally the metes and bounds of the tract, is sufficiently definite to be introduced as evidence to the jury, without the particular parcels or lots of which the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Spears v. Shropshire |
11 La.Ann. 559, Supreme Court of Louisiana (June 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the District Court of East Feliciana, Ratliff, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Splawn v. Martin |
17 Ark. 146, Supreme Court of Arkansas (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
The jurisdiction of the court, in a suit of attachment, as between the interpleaders, arises by virtue of the writ of attachment and a valid service thereof. (Gibson et al. v. Wilson et al., 5 Ark. 422.) Where the transcript of the record of the circuit court, filed in this court, fails to show the issuance and legal service of such writ, this... |
|
Cases |
|
| Stanley v. Westrop |
16 Tex. 200, Supreme Court of Texas (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
It appears indisputably by the evidence that the original contract was for the payment of a greater rate of interest than is allowed by law; and consequently it was illegal and void for the whole amount of interest stipulated for. (Hart. Dig. art. 1609.) The agreement to pay usurious interest was not expressed in the face of the note, but it seems... |
|
Cases |
|
| State v. Allmond |
2 Houst. 612, Court of General Sessions of the Peace and Jail Delivery of Delaware (May 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Legislative power is an attribute of sovereignty belonging to the people, to be exercised only by their representatives. The extent of the grant of it to the legislature, with its reservations and restrictions, are to be found only in the Constitution itself. The Legislature has power, as a police regulation, to prohibit the sale of intoxicating... |
|
Cases |
|
| State v. Bass |
11 La.Ann. 478, Supreme Court of Louisiana (June 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the District Court, Seventh District, Parish of East Feliciana. |
|
Cases |
|
| State v. Bob |
11 La.Ann. 192, Supreme Court of Louisiana (March 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the Sixth Magistrate's Court of Madison. |
|
Cases |
|
| State v. Delerno |
11 La.Ann. 648, Supreme Court of Louisiana (July 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the District Court of the parish of Ouachita, Richardson, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| State v. Guilford |
4 Jones (NC) 83, Supreme Court of North Carolina (December 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Where a record shows that a grand jury was drawn and empannelled, sworn and charged to enquire for the State, of and concerning all offences, & c., and by such grand jury, it was presented in manner and form following, that is to say, setting out the bill of indictment, the record is sufficient without copying the entry of a... |
|
Cases |
|
| State v. Haywood |
3 Jones (NC) 399, Supreme Court of North Carolina (June 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Wherever a duty is imposed by law, the performance of which concerns the public, the omission to perform that duty is an indictable offence. Where, by one clause of an act of assembly, the commissioners of a town are empowered and required to let out the repairing of the streets of such town to the lowestundertaker, and by another clause of the... |
|
Cases |
|
| State v. Ingold |
4 Jones (NC) 216, Supreme Court of North Carolina (December 01, 1856) |
1856 |
There is manifest error in the first proposition of law laid down by his Honor. If the prisoner willingly entered into the fight, and during its progress, however sorely he might be pressed, stabbed the deceased as described by the witnesses, his offense, at least, would be manslaughter. By sorely pressed, we understand being put to the wall, or... |
|
Cases |
|
| State v. Kennerly |
10 Rich. 152, Court of Appeals of Law of South Carolina (November 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Where an indictment sufficiently charges a common law perjury, its conclusion, contra formam statuti, may be rejected as surplusage. By the common law the oath must be material or it will not amount to perjury; and the rule is the same, it seems, under the Act of 1833. Where the indictment alleges the oath to have been material, the materiality... |
|
Cases |
|
| State v. Lowry |
29 Ala. 44, Supreme Court of Alabama (June 01, 1856) |
1856 |
[MOTION TO AFFIRM JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION ON CERTIFICATE, OR TO REQUIRE CLERK TO FORWARD TRANSCRIPT.] |
|
Cases |
|
| State v. Martinez |
11 La.Ann. 23, Supreme Court of Louisiana (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the First District Court of New Orleans, Robertson J. |
|
Cases |
|
| State v. Miller |
24 Conn. 522, Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut (February 01, 1856) |
1856 |
In an information for a violation of the statute entitled an act for the suppression of intemperance, (Rev. Stat. tit. 54, ch. 2, p. 817) which alleges the sale of spirituous and intoxicating liquors, no other description of the kind or quantity of liquor, alleged to have been sold, is necessary. In an information for a... |
|
Cases |
|
| State v. Patrick |
3 Jones (NC) 443, Supreme Court of North Carolina (June 01, 1856) |
1856 |
It is too late, after a juror has been taken and accepted by the prisoner, and has served on the trial, to except to him for incompetency. The 32nd sec., ch. 35 Rev. Code, limits the number of peremptory challenges in capital cases to twenty-three. The declaration of the deceased, that he was afraid that another person than the prisoner would kill... |
|
Cases |
|
| State v. Taylor |
11 La.Ann. 430, Supreme Court of Louisiana (May 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the First District Court of New Orleans, Robertson, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| State v. Wedemeyer |
11 La.Ann. 49, Supreme Court of Louisiana (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the First District Court of New Orleans, Robertson, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| State, to Use of Morrison's Adm'r v. St. Gemme's Adm'r |
23 Mo. 344, Supreme Court of Missouri (October 01, 1856) |
1856 |
The plaintiff commenced his suit originally on the 26th August, 1839, and, having suffered a non-suit, brought the present action within the year, so that it may be considered, in reference to the statute of limitations, as commenced on that day. The beneficiary in it is Zeigler, administrator of Morrison, who, in his lifetime, recovered a judgment... |
|
Cases |
|
| Stevenson v. Gray |
17 B.Mon. 193, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (July 01, 1856) |
1856 |
In December, 1854, this petition in equity was filed in the Logan circuit court, in the name of Hugh Stevenson, suing by M. W. Stevenson, his guardian, against George W. Gray, Sen., and George W. Gray, Jr., and Preston R. Gray, the two last named, who were made defendants by amendment, being the children of George W. Gray and Sarah G. Gray,... |
|
Cases |
|
| Stokes v. Forman |
12 La.Ann. 671, Supreme Court of Louisiana (August 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the District Court of Vermillion. Voorhies, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Stokes v. Winslow |
2 George 518, High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi (October 01, 1856) |
1856 |
1. BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES: PAYABLE TO BEARER: WHEN TRANSFERRED NOT SUBJECT TO EQUITIES BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL PARTIES.A bill of exchange payable to A. or bearer, constitutes a separate and direct contract between the parties liable thereon, and every person who may afterwards become the lawful holder; and such bona fide holder... |
|
Cases |
|
| Stone v. Brown |
16 Tex. 425, Supreme Court of Texas (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Where objections are filed to the grant of letters of administration, which are sustained, and there is an appeal to the district court, where they are also sustained; on appeal to this court it would seem that objections, not filed in the probate or district court, will not be considered, although the grounds therefor may seem to appear from the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Stuart v. Wilder |
17 B.Mon. 55, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (June 13, 1856) |
1856 |
1. By the Revised Statutes, article 4, chapter 46, section 17, property conveyed or devised to a married or unmarried woman to her separate use, to the exclusion of any husband, can not be alienated by her with or without the consent of any husband; but if it be a gift, the wife may alienate with the consent of the donor or his personal... |
|
Cases |
|
| Sturges, Bennet & Co. v. U.S. |
Dev.Ct.Cl. 244, United States Court of Claims (July 28, 1856) |
1856 |
In this case the petitioners allege that, during the years 1847, 1848, 1849, 1850, and 1851, they imported into the United States certain quantities of brandy and other liquors, in casks, and paid duties thereon at the rate of one hundred per centum, not only on the value of the quantity of liquor ascertained by gauge to be contained in the casks,... |
|
Cases |
|
| Succession of Fletcher |
11 La.Ann. 59, Supreme Court of Louisiana (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the Second District Court of New Orleans, Morgan, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Succession of Foulkes |
11 La.Ann. 593, Supreme Court of Louisiana (June 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the Second District Court of New Orleans, Lea, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Succession of Lerude |
11 La.Ann. 386, Supreme Court of Louisiana (May 01, 1856) |
1856 |
Appeal from the Third District Court of New Orleans, Kennedy, J. |
|
Cases |
|
| Suggs v. Sapp |
20 Ga. 100, Supreme Court of Georgia (June 01, 1856) |
1856 |
[1.] A legacy is not subject to be seized and sold for the debts of the legatee, until the executor has assented to it; or, at least, until all claims upon it of higher rank than the claim of the legatee, have ceased to exist. Motion, in Randolph Superior Court. A fi. fa. in favor of James V. Suggs vs. Neal A. Sapp was levied, and a claim... |
|
Cases |
|
| Swayzee v. Miller |
17 B.Mon. 564, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
1. Where a guardian has been appointed to an orphan residing in Kentucky, and the residence of the orphan is changed, and a guardian appointed in the State of his or her residence, such foreign guardian has a right to draw from the guardian in Kentucky any personal property belonging to such orphan ward. (Rev. Stat. 376.) [The facts of the case are... |
|
Cases |
|
| Swigert v. Bank of Kentucky |
17 B.Mon. 268, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (July 01, 1856) |
1856 |
1. A mortgagor, even after a decree of foreclosure and order of sale, is still regarded in equity as the owner of the mortgaged property. He has the right to pay off the debt and hold the property. If a sale is made, only so much will be sold as will pay the mortgage debt. Consequently the mortgagor has the right to procure another to pay the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Taylor v. Boulware |
17 Tex. 74, Supreme Court of Texas (January 01, 1856) |
1856 |
From the statement of facts, there is no question that the whole of the land sued for in this case was, in 1848, the homestead of Boulware, the appellee in this court and plaintiff in the court below; and it is equally clear that he never relinquished or abandoned it, but that it was his homestead at the time of the sale by the sheriff, under which... |
|
Cases |
|
| Taylor v. Dawson |
3 Jones Eq. 86, Supreme Court of North Carolina (December 01, 1856) |
1856 |
The bill alleges that the debts for which the deed of trust to Hyman was executed were feigned and covinous, and on this ground that deed is impeached as fraudulent and void against creditors. Upon the argument, the plaintiffs' counsel admitted that all the debts secured by the deed of trust were justly due. This relieves it from impeachment, and... |
|
Cases |
The case or administrative decision has some negative history, but has not been reversed or overruled. |
| Taylor v. Smith |
17 B.Mon. 536, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (December 19, 1856) |
1856 |
Smith, on the 29th day of August, 1855, instituted this suit against Menzies, etc., upon a promissory note for two thousand and fifty dollars; and his attorney, he being absent from the county, made an affidavit, stating, among other things, that Menzies was about to sell, convey, or otherwise dispose of his property, with the fraudulent... |
|
Cases |
|