| Title | Citation | Year | Summary | Most Relevant | Type | Status |
| North v. Cates |
2 Bibb 591, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (April 01, 1812) |
1812 |
THIS is an action on the case brought by Cates against North, in the Christian Circuit Court. The declaration in substance charges, that Cates had been for a long time, and still was possessed of a certain tract of land, messuage and cottage, with all its appurtenances, in the county of Christian, upon which he, Cates, had made 140 pannels of... |
|
Cases |
|
| Orleans Nav. Co. v. City of New Orleans |
2 Mart.(o.s.) 214, Superior Court of Louisiana (January 01, 1812) |
1812 |
This case was now argued before the three judges. [For prior opinions, see 1 Mart. (O. S.) 269;2 Mart. (O. S.) 10.] |
|
Cases |
|
| Pitts v. Tidwell |
3 Munf. 88, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (February 22, 1812) |
1812 |
Saturday, February 22d, 1812, the following was pronounced as the opinion of this Court. The Court is of opinion, that the first appeal taken in this case, being from an order dissolving an injunction; and it neither appearing that two succeeding courts had been held thereafter, in the said county; (even prior to the time when the second... |
|
Cases |
|
| Poutz v. Duplantier |
2 Mart.(o.s.) 331, Superior Court of Louisiana (October 01, 1812) |
1812 |
Judgment being had against the maker of the note, execution issued and levied, and property sold on a credit, which was not yet expired, the defendant, endoser of the note, paid into court the costs of the suit, and prayed that execution might be stayed till it appeared that the property seized was insufficient to satisfy the judgment. The... |
|
Cases |
|
| Poutz v. Duplantier |
2 Mart.(o.s.) 178, Superior Court of Louisiana (April 01, 1812) |
1812 |
The defendant was sued as endorser of a note. The plaintiffs had brought suit and obtained judgment against the maker, whose property was taken in execution and sold at twelve months credit, under the act of 1808, ch. 15. [For subsequent opinions, see 2 Mart. (O. S.) 328, 331.] |
|
Cases |
|
| Preston v. McGaughey |
Brunn.Coll.C. 174, Circuit Court, D Tennessee (January 01, 1812) |
1812 |
On the 2d day of January, 1793, the plaintiff, Walter Preston, entered into an article of agreement with William M'Gaughey in the following words: Articles of agreement, made and entered into, this second day of January, 1793, witnesseth, that William M'Gaughey hath sold unto Walter Preston one tract or parcel of land, lying in the Turkey... |
|
Cases |
|
| Rambo v. Rambo |
4 Des. 251, Court of Appeals of Equity of South Carolina (February 01, 1812) |
1812 |
Where a bill charges fraud, and advantage taken of the complainant, the defendant shall not protect himself by a general demurrer, but shall be obliged to answer; though the acts of the complainant may not be altogether clear of suspicion and doubt. The justice of the case cannot be got at on a demurrer, and the demurrer admitting the facts... |
|
Cases |
|
| Randolph v. Randolph |
3 Munf. 99, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (March 16, 1812) |
1812 |
Decree affirmed. |
|
Cases |
|
| Reston v. Clayton's Ex'rs |
2 Mur. 198, Supreme Court of North Carolina (July 01, 1812) |
1812 |
It is not necessary to enquire whether the legacies vested before the time pointed out for their payment. If they did not vest before that time, it is clear that all the grand-children are entitled; if they did vest before that time, we are authorised by the case of the Attorney General v. Crispin, (1 Brown, Ch. Rep. 386,) to say, that the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Robertson v. Dunn |
2 Mur. 133, Supreme Court of North Carolina (January 01, 1812) |
1812 |
If it appear doubtful, from the face of an instrument, whether the person executing it intended it to operate as a deed or a will, it is proper to ascertain the intention of such person, not only from the contents of such instrument, but also from evidence shewing how such person really considered it--(Powell on Devises 12, and the cases there... |
|
Cases |
|
| Robinson v. Culp |
1 Tread. 231, Constitutional Court of Appeals of South Carolina (November 01, 1812) |
1812 |
I can see no good reason why a civil action should be merged in a felony in any case, where property is involved, and the action is for the property itself. In England, a conviction for felony, works a forfeiture of property, and to suffer an action to be brought before conviction, would discourage prosecutions, and deprive the king of this part of... |
|
Cases |
|
| Rothmahler's Adm'x v. Myers |
4 Des. 215, Court of Appeals of Equity of South Carolina (February 01, 1812) |
1812 |
Parol evidence, even of the person who drew the will, and who is of unimpeachable character, rejected, when offered to support the allegation of a mistake in the will, and to prove that the testator intended to dispose of the property in a manner not apparent on the face of the will. But such was the obscurity of the will, that the testimony, if it... |
|
Cases |
|
| Rutherford v. Ruff |
4 Des. 350, Court of Appeals of Equity of South Carolina (June 01, 1812) |
1812 |
A deed executed on the day of his marriage, by a man of extremely weak intellects, and habitual drunkenness, conveying his real estate to his brother, who is a man of good understanding, for love and affection, without any reservation for himself and family, must have been founded on a secret confidence and trust between the brothers; and the court... |
|
Cases |
|
| Sheppard's Ex'r v. Starke |
3 Munf. 29, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (March 06, 1812) |
1812 |
The Court is of opinion, that although either of the parties to the original decree pronounced in this cause, might, in a summary way, have resorted to the Court of Chancery for its further interposition, if deemed necessary, (under the special reservation in the said decree contained,) they might also proceed by bill, as was done in the... |
|
Cases |
The case or administrative decision has some negative history, but has not been reversed or overruled. |
| Smith v. Miller |
2 Bibb 616, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (October 01, 1812) |
1812 |
Of the legal effects and operation of a writing produced in evidence, the Court is to judge. If a party move the Court to instruct the jury hypothetically -- which instruction would be proper upon the facts supposed--yet if it appear from the evidence upon which the instruction was asked, that the hypothesis was not true in fact, and the evidence... |
|
Cases |
|
| Sneed v. Hooper |
3 Tenn. 200, Supreme Court of Errors and Appeals of Tennessee (January 01, 1812) |
1812 |
On the part of the plaintiffs in error, it is insisted that the gift from Sugg to Hooper and wife is void as against the wife of Sneed, it having been done after the marriage. It is admitted that an administrator has the right to sell the personal property of his intestate, but not to give it away. One, it is contended, is necessary to the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Snelgrove v. Snelgrove |
4 Des. 274, Court of Appeals of Equity of South Carolina (June 01, 1812) |
1812 |
A principal devisee of real estate, cannot be a competent subscribing witness to the will under which he claims, because he is interested. The penner of the will, who by being named an executor, writes his own name on the face of the will, and is present at the execution of it, is not a subscribing witness under the statute. A purchaser from the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Spruill v. Spruill |
2 Mur. 175, Supreme Court of North Carolina (July 01, 1812) |
1812 |
It is not necessary to enquire how far the assent of an executor to a specific legacy adversely claimed by a third person having possession thereof, would enable the legatee to sue for and recover such legacy in his own name; for it does not appear that there was an adverse possession of the legacy in question, before the assent of the executors of... |
|
Cases |
|
| State v. Hill |
1 Tread. 242, Constitutional Court of Appeals of South Carolina (November 01, 1812) |
1812 |
I am clearly of opinion, 1st, that court had power to bail; and, 2ndly, that the court ought to have heard and considered the affidavits which were offered; and ought to have decided on the merits of the application after hearing and considering the affidavits. 1st, If any credit is due to the oracles of the English law, Coke and Hale, to which may... |
|
Cases |
|
| Taylor v. Heriot |
4 Des. 227, Court of Appeals of Equity of South Carolina (February 01, 1812) |
1812 |
A surety may apply to the court for relief and protection as soon as he is end angered. Conveyances of property by a husband in trust for his wife and her issue, and purchases made on their behalf, will not be set aside as voluntary or fraudulent, where the husband has received and applied to the payment of his debts, or other use, funds or... |
|
Cases |
|
| Taylor's Adm'x v. Richards |
3 Munf. 8, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (March 07, 1812) |
1812 |
Saturday, March 7th, 1812, the opinion of this court was pronounced that the judgment be affirmed. |
|
Cases |
|
| Webley v. Langstaff |
3 Des. 504, Court of Appeals of Equity of South Carolina (March 01, 1812) |
1812 |
THE bill states that John Beale being possessed of a large real and personal estate, executed a deed on the 24th March, 1803, in the presence of two witnesses, by which he gave to Francis Bremar and Florian Charles Mey, in trust for the complainants, the sum of 1500l. and he assigned unto them all the rents arising from the hire of a certain wharf... |
|
Cases |
|
| Wells v. Lane |
9 Johns. 144 (January 01, 1812) |
1812 |
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 |
|
| Williams v. Moore |
3 Munf. 310, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (December 12, 1812) |
1812 |
2. The Court's instruction to the jury, that no bailee is responsible for accident, without an express agreement to that effect, was plainly erroneous; for the law is otherwise in relation to common carriers; and to innkeepers. It may be said that this was not the point in controversy; that the instruction given was a mere opinion upon an abstract... |
|
Cases |
|
| Allen v. Mayson's Ex'rs |
1 Tread. 440, Constitutional Court of Appeals of South Carolina (April 01, 1813) |
1813 |
In this case, I am very clearly of opinion that the replication is a departure in pleading from the matter contained in the declaration, which in law is a good cause of demurrer. (Coke Litt. 303. b. 5 Comyn, 433.) A departure is fatal on a general demurrer. 5 Comyn, Tit. Pleading, 436. In this case the declaration is on a contract of sale, and the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Atkinson v. Farmer |
2 Mur. 291, Supreme Court of North Carolina (June 01, 1813) |
1813 |
A party has no remedy to recover a debt once sued for, the execution on which has been returned satisfied. Purchaser at Sheriff's Sale.--At a Sheriff's sale there is no warranty of title, independent of the act of 1807, ch. 4. Whoever, therefore, purchases, runs the risk of a bad title. No man can be compelled to become debtor to... |
|
Cases |
|
| Bailey v. South Carolina Ins. Co. |
1 Tread. 381, Constitutional Court of Appeals of South Carolina (May 01, 1813) |
1813 |
The sentence of a foreign court of admiralty is conclusive only of those matters which it positively and clearly decides. A condemnation as good and lawful prize, without stating any reasons, does not falsify the warranty of neutrallty, inasmuch as the condemnation may have proceeded on other grounds beside the ground of enemies' property. Where... |
|
Cases |
|
| Bailey v. South Carolina Ins. Co. |
1 Tread. 381, Constitutional Court of Appeals of South Carolina (May 01, 1813) |
1813 |
In deciding this case, a doctrine, which has been agitated with great ability in the different courts of the United States, as well as those of England, is brought to our view; and it is a subject of great astonishment to observe the contrariety, as well as vibration of opinion which has existed on it. Before I proceed to give my opinion on this... |
|
Cases |
|
| BALDWIN, administrator, &c., v. HARVEY and MUNRO |
Supreme Court of New York (January 01, 1813) |
1813 |
The rule of damages, in trover, is the value of the article at the time of conversion. THIS was an action of trover, for divers articles of merchandise. Plea, non cul. The value of the articles claimed had increased in the market, since the conversion complained of; and the only question was, whether the plaintiff should recover their then value,... |
|
Cases |
|
| BALDWIN, administrator, &c., v. HARVEY and MUNRO |
(January 01, 1813) |
1813 |
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 |
|
| Barnett v. Crutcher |
3 Bibb 202, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (October 20, 1813) |
1813 |
THIS writ of error is prosecuted to reverse a judgment of the Nelson Circuit Court awarded against Barnett, who was plaintiff in that Court. The declaration alleges the plaintiff and Abraham Henderson, on the first day of March, 1786, by a certain writing signed by them and to the Court shown, promised they or either of them would pay Hesper... |
|
Cases |
|
| Barton v. Rushton |
4 Des. 373, Court of Appeals of Equity of South Carolina (February 01, 1813) |
1813 |
Fraud will not be lightly presumed against the denial of the answer. A judgment against a man who has contracted to purchase land, and has taken a bond from the vendor to make titles, and has paid part of the purchase money, does not bind this equitable title, which is incomplete, and may be rescinded by the parties, if done without fraud,... |
|
Cases |
|
| Broadfoot v. Dyer |
3 Munf. 350, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (January 12, 1813) |
1813 |
Judgment reversed; verdict set aside; and cause remanded for a new trial, on which no such instruction is to be given. |
|
Cases |
|
| Coleman v. Hutchenson |
3 Bibb 209, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (November 17, 1813) |
1813 |
THE appellee exhibited his bill to recover a residuary interest under the will of John Hutchenson the elder. He claims as heir at law to William Hutchenson, his brother; and the appellant derives title under a purchase from the father of William, who was one of the executors of John Hutchenson, the testator, upon the following case: A devises... |
|
Cases |
|
| Com. v. Barker |
5 Binn. 423, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (March 29, 1813) |
1813 |
A minor under the age of eighteen, bound by the managers of the almshouse as an apprentice to a mechanic, who covenanted not to assign the indenture without the consent of the managers, may with the consent of his master in writing, and without the consent of the managers, be enlisted as a soldier in the army of the United States. THIS was a habeas... |
|
Cases |
|
| Com. v. Edwards |
6 Binn. 202, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (December 16, 1813) |
1813 |
The master of an apprentice cannot take him out of the state where the indentures were executed, unless the indentures give the power, or it follows from the nature of the mystery which the apprentice is to learn. A HABEAS CORPUS issued to the defendant, to bring up the body of Maria Slack, an infant, in his custody, to which he made return, that... |
|
Cases |
|
| Craig v. Estes |
3 Tenn. 381, Supreme Court of Errors and Appeals of Tennessee (January 01, 1813) |
1813 |
This doctrine has been long settled, both in this State and North Carolina. The principles of the case of Timms v. Potter, determined a number of years ago in the latter State, has been constantly followed up ever since; and it was lately fully recognized in a case at Rogersville, where I sat alone. From these cases it will appear that if property,... |
|
Cases |
|
| Cramer v. Bradshaw |
10 Johns. 484 (October 01, 1813) |
1813 |
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 |
|
| Day v. Pickett |
4 Munf. 104, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (December 17, 1813) |
1813 |
1. If an appeal be taken, but not perfected by giving bond and security, a writ of supersedeas, to the same judgment may be obtained. 2. An appeal bond executed by a security only, without a principal is not sufficient in law. See Rev. Code, 1st vol. p. 82. ch. 66, sect. 58. 3. A plea of the act of limitations, in bar of a scire facias to revive a... |
|
Cases |
|
| Dickenson v. Dickenson |
2 Mur. 279, Supreme Court of North Carolina (June 01, 1813) |
1813 |
The Court have looked into the cases of Smith v. Williams, (1 Murph. 426,) and Streator v. Jones, (Id, 449,) heretofore decided, and are of opinion that this case is governed by them, and that, consequently, it is not competent for the Plaintiff to give parol evidence for either of the purposes stated in the case. |
|
Cases |
|
| Dix v. Evans |
3 Munf. 308, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (February 02, 1813) |
1813 |
February 2d, 1813, the Court affirmed the judgment. |
|
Cases |
|
| Dunbar v. Williams |
10 Johns. 249 (May 01, 1813) |
1813 |
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 |
|
| Duplantier v. St. Pe |
3 Mart.(o.s.) 127, Supreme Court of Louisiana (July 01, 1813) |
1813 |
This is an appeal from the First Judicial District. Cross actions had been instituted in the Superior Court of the late territory, which were afterwards consolidated, and referred to arbitrators. A report was made, but it does not appear that it was confirmed. Every thing that has been said on the subject of the award had no application, and is... |
|
Cases |
|
| Estill v. Miller |
3 Bibb 177, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (October 09, 1813) |
1813 |
DURING the absence of Samuel Estill from Kentucky, Benjamin Estill purchased from William M. Williams and George Hubbard the benefit of two judgments and executions, to the amount of about £90, which remained due them from said Samuel. Benjamin Estill caused sales to be made under the executions, and actually sold and purchased himself seven... |
|
Cases |
|
| Fall v. Overseers of Poor |
3 Munf. 495, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (November 23, 1813) |
1813 |
It is unnecessary to notice all the points that were made in this case. The judgment of the district Court, rendered on the 12th day of April, 1803, as well as the succeeding one, rendered in 1805, are both within the time limited by law for granting writs of error and supersedeas, and, of consequence, are regular before the Court. The validity of... |
|
Cases |
|
| Foster v. Crenshaw's Ex'rs |
3 Munf. 514, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (January 01, 1813) |
1813 |
The _ day of January, 1813, the following opinion of this Court was pronounced. The Court not deciding, at present, upon a principle of such general importance, as that under which the land in the proceedings mentioned was decreed to be sold, to discharge the claim of the appellees, (a principle deserving great consideration, and which, in... |
|
Cases |
|
| Goodwyn v. State Bank |
4 Des. 389, Court of Appeals of Equity of South Carolina (February 01, 1813) |
1813 |
The court will dissolve an injunction on the coming in of the answer of some of the defendants, though all the defendants have not answered. The court will not delay a creditor from pursuing and enforcing his remedies against his debtor, on the ground that some collateral securities, which were intended as a benefit to the creditor, are entangled,... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hayden v. Dunlap |
3 Bibb 216, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (November 17, 1813) |
1813 |
THIS was an ejectment. On the trial, the plaintiff, to prove his title, produced in evidence a regular chain of conveyances from the patentee of the Commonwealth to the defendant Hayden, and the record of a judgment and execution against him, together with a deed from the sheriff to the plaintiff for the land in controversy purporting to be made to... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hipkins v. Bernard |
4 Munf. 83, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (December 01, 1813) |
1813 |
1. An executor may be allowed a commission for turning bonds, or other debts, payable to his testator, into mortgages, (without any actual receipt of the money,) and delivering such mortgages to the legatees. See the case of Hipkins v. Bernard, executor of Hipkins, and others, 2 H & M. 21, which in this respect, is over ruled by this case. 2. An... |
|
Cases |
|
| Homes v. Mitchell |
2 Mur. 228, Supreme Court of North Carolina (January 01, 1813) |
1813 |
The first clause of the will connected with this question, and by which the premises are given to Mary Mabson, certainly has only the effect of conveying to her an estate for life. The testator has not even expressed an intention of giving away the whole of his estate; a circumstance, which in many cases, has been much relied upon. But what appears... |
|
Cases |
|