| Title | Citation | Year | Summary | Most Relevant | Type | Status |
| Metayer v. Noret |
5 Mart.(o.s.) 566, Supreme Court of Louisiana (June 01, 1818) |
1818 |
Appeal from the court of the parish and city of New-Orleans. |
|
Cases |
|
| Millsborough Furnace Co. v. Finch |
1 Del.Cas. 547, Court of Common Pleas of Delaware (April 01, 1818) |
1818 |
On a rule to show cause why the defendant should not be discharged on filing common bail, an affidavit was filed by plaintiffs stating a breach of a covenant entered into by defendant to furnish the plaintiffs' furnace with a sufficient quantity of coal to keep it in operation. |
|
Cases |
|
| Millsborough Furnace Co. v. Finch |
1 Del.Cas. 547 (April 01, 1818) |
1818 |
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 |
|
| Neel v. Deens |
1 Nott & McC. 210, Constitutional Court of Appeals of South Carolina (May 01, 1818) |
1818 |
In an action for money had and received, to recover money for a consideration which failed, the sum paid must form the measure of damages, and the Jury cannot give vindictive damages. |
|
Cases |
|
| Nightingale v. Withington |
15 Mass. 272, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (October 01, 1818) |
1818 |
A minor had received a promissory note, in payment of his labors in the employment of the maker of the note, and had endorsed the same to a third person, for a valuable consideration, the endorsee knowing the endorser to be under age; and afterwards the father of the minor received the amount of the maker in discharge of the note, both the father... |
|
Cases |
|
| Norris v. Beckley |
2 Mill Const. 228, Constitutional Court of Appeals of South Carolina (May 01, 1818) |
1818 |
The action of trover is a remedy by which a person recovers damages for the conversion of personal property, but not the property itself. It is a well known legal maxim, that a verdict in trover vests the property in the defendant, transit in rem judicatam. From the time of this verdict, therefore, the property belonged to the defendant, and it... |
|
Cases |
|
| Ostrander v. Brown |
15 Johns. 39, Supreme Court of New York (January 01, 1818) |
1818 |
Where goods were put on board of the defendant's vessel to be carried to Albany, and, on arriving there, were, by the defendant's direction, put on the wharf, it was held that this was not a delivery to the consignee, and that evidence of a usage to deliver goods in this manner was immaterial, but that the defendant was liable in an action of... |
|
Cases |
|
| Ostrander v. Brown |
15 Johns. 39 (January 01, 1818) |
1818 |
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 |
|
| Overseers of Poor of Town of Claverack v. Overseers of Poor of City of Hudson |
15 Johns. 283 (January 01, 1818) |
1818 |
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 |
|
| Peytavin v. Hopkins |
5 Mart.(o.s.) 438, Supreme Court of Louisiana (March 01, 1818) |
1818 |
Appeal from the court of the second district. [For subsequent opinion, see 6 Mart. (O. S.) 256.] |
|
Cases |
|
| Phillips v. McDowall |
2 Mill Const. 70, Constitutional Court of Appeals of South Carolina (May 01, 1818) |
1818 |
It is unnecessary to recapitulate all the testimony given in these cases. It is sufficient to say, it was of that equivocal character which is most usually given in cases of this description. They appear to have been cases proper for the consideration of a jury; and if there had been but one action, or if the verdicts had both been one way, it is... |
|
Cases |
|
| Phillips v. Overton |
5 Tenn. 291, Supreme Court of Errors and Appeals of Tennessee (March 01, 1818) |
1818 |
If an answer be so evasive that it is a mere delusion, it will be considered as no answer at all, and the court will order it to be taken off the file. But when the court does not make such an order, the complainant should except to the answer, and, if he omit to do this, it can not be said that the matter evaded is either in issue or confessed.... |
|
Cases |
|
| Phillips v. Rogers |
5 Mart.(o.s.) 700, Supreme Court of Louisiana (October 01, 1818) |
1818 |
Appeal from the court of the sixth district. |
|
Cases |
|
| Pierce v. Grays |
5 Mart.(o.s.) 367, Supreme Court of Louisiana (February 01, 1818) |
1818 |
Appeal from the court of the third district. |
|
Cases |
|
| Powell v. Powell's Ex'rs |
2 Mur. 326, Supreme Court of North Carolina (July 01, 1818) |
1818 |
The residuary clause of the will, by authorising the executors to dispose of the surplus of the estate as they might think proper, absolved the executors, who are the legal owners of the personal estate, from accountability to any one; and this want of accountability goes to every part of the personal estate, which had not, by the operation of the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Quarles v. Taylor's Ex'rs |
2 Mill Const. 190, Constitutional Court of Appeals of South Carolina (May 01, 1818) |
1818 |
I have no hesitation in declaring, that the ground is not sufficient to authorize such a decision as the defendant claims, a nonsuit. Nor can I see what pretence there is for alleging that he was taken by surprise. It was for the defendant, and not the plaintiffs, to compel the attendance of such witnesses as he might deem material to his defence.... |
|
Cases |
|
| Quay v. McNinch |
2 Mill Const. 78, Constitutional Court of Appeals of South Carolina (May 01, 1818) |
1818 |
It is not every possession, nor, indeed, the actual use of the personal property of another, that lays a foundation for an action of trover. It must be a wrongful conversion of it to defendant's use. Hence, if the defendant delivers the property upon demand, where the possession is lawful, no damages can be recovered in this action for having taken... |
|
Cases |
|
| Robinson v. Barfield |
2 Mur. 391, Supreme Court of North Carolina (July 01, 1818) |
1818 |
The deed of a feme covert, without a private examination, according to the act of 1751, is a mere nullity and void; and, to give validity to her deed, it must appear that her private examination has been had, pursuant to the act; if it appear by the Clerk's certificate that the deed was acknowledged in open Court and ordered to be registered, the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Rugely v. Davidson |
2 Mill Const. 33, Constitutional Court of Appeals of South Carolina (May 01, 1818) |
1818 |
This was an action of assumpsit on a note of hand, for 132 dollars 39 cents, by the endorsee against the endorser. The note was given by one James Bairfield, on the 9th March, 1812, to the defendant, Davidson, and payable three days after date. It was endorsed by Davidson to the plaintiff on the 15th of April, 1813; a period of twelve months and... |
|
Cases |
|
| Rutherford v. Commonwealth |
2 Va.Cas. 141, General Court of Virginia (November 01, 1818) |
1818 |
The important, and indeed the only question in the Case is, whether, under a combined view of the Act against the receivers of stolen goods, and the Act of 1806, intituled, an Act to punish certain thefts and forgeries, and the Act of 1812, in amendment thereof, the stolen bank note could be considered as goods, within the meaning of... |
|
Cases |
|
| Saltus v. United Ins. Co. |
15 Johns. 523, Supreme Court of New York (October 01, 1818) |
1818 |
No objection can be made against the sufficiency of the notice and cause of abandonment. A true statement of the facts, with respect to the situation of the vessel at Gothenburgh, was made, and given to the underwriters. Whether it was to be deemed, in judgment of law, a restraint or a blockade, would not alter the rights of the assured growing out... |
|
Cases |
|
| Saltus v. United Ins. Co. |
15 Johns. 523 (October 01, 1818) |
1818 |
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 |
|
| Selden v. Coalter |
2 Va.Cas. 553, General Court of Virginia (November 01, 1818) |
1818 |
Our Statute of Wills was borrowed from the Statute 29 Charles 2, (with one exception, which dispenses with the attestation of witnesses, where the Will is altogether written by the Testator,) and therefore the decision in Lemoyne v. Stanley, that the name of the Testator appearing either at the commencement, or in the margin, or at the foot, is a... |
|
Cases |
|
| Shute v. Harder |
9 Tenn. 3, Supreme Court of Errors and Appeals of Tennessee (December 01, 1818) |
1818 |
The bill states, that on the 6th August, 1807, Jacob Garrison entered 640 acres of land (entry No. 48, on warrant No. 4179); that on the 14th day of the same month, in the same office, John Curtis entered 200 acres within the bounds of the said 640 acres, and a grant issued on this 200 acres to said Curtis; and Curtis conveyed this 200 acres to... |
|
Cases |
|
| Stark ads. McGowen |
1 Nott & McC. 387, Constitutional Court of Appeals of South Carolina (November 01, 1818) |
1818 |
The Legislature has the Constitutional right to deprive an individual of his property for great national purposes. No set form of words is necessary in a grant of a ferry; any words which clearly and explicitly show the intention of the legislature, are sufficient: Therefore, a clause in an Act of Assembly, declaring that a certain ferry shall be... |
|
Cases |
|
| Starke v. Woodward |
1 Nott & McC. 259, Constitutional Court of Appeals of South Carolina (November 01, 1818) |
1818 |
Where there was an interlocutory judgment against a defendant, and the case had been several terms on the writ of enquiry docket, although no motion had been made at the first Court, after the order had been obtained, to set aside the order, yet, under particular circumstances, the Court set aside the order for judgment, and gave defendant time to... |
|
Cases |
|
| State v. Dick |
2 Mur. 388, Supreme Court of North Carolina (July 01, 1818) |
1818 |
At common law, Rape was a felony, but the offence was afterwards changed to a misdemeanor before the statute of Westminster. 1. By that statute, the punishment was mitigated; but by Statute Westminster, 2. The offence was again changed to a felony, and thence its present existence as a felony, is by statute: an indictment for Rape must therefore... |
|
Cases |
|
| State v. Edward |
5 Mart.(o.s.) 474, Supreme Court of Louisiana (April 01, 1818) |
1818 |
Appeal from the court of the first district. |
|
Cases |
|
| State v. Johns |
1 Del.Cas. 551, Court of Common Pleas of Delaware (May 01, 1818) |
1818 |
This was an indictment for a misdemeanor in receiving stolen goods from certain persons unknown to the grand inquest. Hall, for the prisoner, contended that the 14th section of c. 22a, 1 Del.Laws 70, would not support the indictment because the words such principal robber or burglar, felon or thief restrict the provisions of the section to... |
|
Cases |
|
| State v. Johns |
1 Del.Cas. 551 (May 01, 1818) |
1818 |
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 |
|
| State v. Jones |
1 Del.Cas. 546 (April 01, 1818) |
1818 |
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 |
|
| State v. Neese |
Taylor 270, Supreme Court of North Carolina (January 01, 1818) |
1818 |
The question which arises in this case is, whether the libel stated in the indictment constitutes per se a libel? If it does, it being charged to be written of and concerning Elizabeth Holt, by the defendant, the State would be entitled to judgment; and it seems to me a very plain case. Wherever the indictment charges the defendant with the writing... |
|
Cases |
|
| State v. Riggin |
1 Del.Cas. 547 (April 01, 1818) |
1818 |
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 |
|
| State v. Wilson |
2 Mill Const. 135, Constitutional Court of Appeals of South Carolina (May 01, 1818) |
1818 |
1st. Whatever is indispensably necessary to be proven to warrant a conviction, must be alleged in the indictment. Thus, in indictments for murder, the words felonice murdravit, and in larceny the words felonice cepit et asportavit, are indispensably necessary. Even in a civil action for a deceit, the scienter should be averred in the declaration,... |
|
Cases |
|
| Touro v. Cassin |
1 Nott & McC. 173, Constitutional Court of Appeals of South Carolina (January 01, 1818) |
1818 |
The legality, or illegality, as well as the construction of a contract, must depend on the lex loci, where executed, unless it appear from the contract itself, that it was the understanding of the parties, that it was to be executed elsewhere. A Note given in Massachusetts, as a premium, on a policy of Insurance, on any vessel engaged in the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Town of Bow v. Town of Nottingham |
1 N.H. 260, Superior Court of Judicature of New Hampshire (October 01, 1818) |
1818 |
Before our statute of January 1, 1796, an illegitimate child had a settlement in the place of its birth. Such a child, after the age of seven, could acquire a new settlement in its own right, by a year's residence in a different town. A warning out was invalid, unless served, and returned to the clerk's office within a year from the commencement of... |
|
Cases |
|
| Town of Gilford v. Town of Gilmantown |
1 N.H. 194, Superior Court of Judicature of New Hampshire (September 01, 1818) |
1818 |
Where the parents of a single woman live in one town, and she, when of age, labours for wages in another, her dwelling place or home, under our statute as to the settlement of paupers, is in the town where she laboured. This was an action of assumpsit for money expended in the relief of one Betsey Smith, from July 1813 to October... |
|
Cases |
|
| U.S. v. Godley |
2 Cranch C.C. 153, Circuit Court, District of Columbia (November 01, 1818) |
1818 |
Indictment at common law [against James Godley] for stealing a mulatto boy, named William Foote, of the price of 500 dollars, of the goods and chattels of one Fanny Thomas. |
|
Cases |
|
| Vansant v. Money's Lessee |
4 H. & J. 313, Court of Appeals of Maryland (June 01, 1818) |
1818 |
B M by his will dated in 1806, after devising lands to be sold by his executors, devised as follows I give and devise to my brother J M, his heirs and assigns, for ever, one half of all those other lands near, &c The remaining half of the lands above mentioned. I give and devise to be equally divided between my two sisters R M and E P, share and... |
|
Cases |
|
| Waples v. Aydelot |
2 Del.Cas. 385 (March 11, 1818) |
1818 |
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 |
|
| Watson v. Inhabitants of Cambridge |
15 Mass. 286, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (October 01, 1818) |
1818 |
Where an inhabitant of a town incurs an expense for the relief of a pauper, for which the town is liable after notice and request to the overseers of such town, such notice and request need not be in writing. An action against the town, for the reimbursement of such expense, is not limited to two years after the notice. Where a bond had been given... |
|
Cases |
|
| Welborn v. Little |
1 Nott & McC. 263, Constitutional Court of Appeals of South Carolina (November 01, 1818) |
1818 |
The Act of Assembly of 1712, gives the Commissioners of the Poor power to bind Minors, as apprentices, only where they shall become chargeable to the district. The Commissioners of the Poor have no right to bind an infant, if its Parents are living. An assignment of void Indentures, though with the knowledge and approbation of the Father, if not... |
|
Cases |
|
| Adams v. Anderson |
4 H. & J. 558, Court of Appeals of Maryland (December 01, 1819) |
1819 |
It is objected that the agreement in this case is a special verbal promise to answer for the default of another person, and void under the statute of frauds. In the opinion of the court it is clearly not such an undertaking, but is a palpable cheat and fraud on the part of the appellant, for which the appellee is entitled to damages. JUDGMENT... |
|
Cases |
|
| Alexander's Heirs v. Coleman |
6 Munf. 328, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (March 31, 1819) |
1819 |
The Bill in this case was filed by Coleman and wife, to have partition of lands between the female plaintiff and her two brothers, Johnson and George Cleveland, agreeably to the Will of their father; alledging that, though, by that Will, her mother was empowered to divide the estate, yet it was intended that an equal division should be made, which... |
|
Cases |
|
| Anderson v. Jackson ex dem. Eden |
16 Johns. 382, Supreme Court of New York (January 01, 1819) |
1819 |
E. devised a farm to his son Joseph, his heirs, &c. for ever; and another farm to his son Medcef, his heirs, &c. for ever; and added, it is my will that if either of my said sons should depart this life without lawful issue, his share or part shall go to the survivor; and in case of both their deaths without lawful issue, he gave the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Andry v. Foy |
7 Mart.(o.s.) 33, Supreme Court of Louisiana (July 01, 1819) |
1819 |
In this case, the court pronounced judgment at June term. See the preceding volume [Andry v. Foy, 6 Mart. (O. S.) 689]. Mazureau, on an application for a re-hearing. The first question to be decided between the parties was: Is the defendant by the manner in which the sale was made, under the circumstances disclosed by the testimony and after the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Armstrong v. Hickman |
6 Munf. 287, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (February 17, 1819) |
1819 |
1. After dissolution of one Injunction, another was granted to the same Judgment, and made perpetual, upon new matter, not known to the Complainant before the first was dissolved; it appearing that the contract in question, though not tainted with fraud, was founded upon a mistake in relation to the existence of an important fact, of which both... |
|
Cases |
|
| Banks v. Booth |
6 Munf. 385, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (April 16, 1819) |
1819 |
Upon the proofs in this case, taken in connexion with the suppression of the Will of 25th Nov. 1807, by the appellants, or some of them, which, in this particular, warrants the strongest presumption against them, we have no doubt but that that Will was written by A. Banks the supposed testator, and contained a clause such as that stated in the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Bearden v. Wood |
1 A.K.Marsh. 450, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (April 13, 1819) |
1819 |
This is a writ of error to a decree dismissing a bill brought by Bearden against Henry M. Wood and others, to obtain the conveyance of two hundred acres of land, for which Wood had given his bond to James Gowen, who had assigned the same to Bearden. Bearden alleges that the defendant, Wood, had sold the land to his brother Thomas Wood, who had paid... |
|
Cases |
|
| Blackledge v. Singleton |
3 Mur. 597, Supreme Court of North Carolina (November 01, 1819) |
1819 |
I think this short answer may be given to the claims of Benjamin Blackledge, Richard B. Singleton and Thomas Singleton, that Milly, the mother of Squire, being excepted from their bequests, they can have no claim to any of her issue born after the testator's death; and to the claim of William Blackledge, that the testator intended him no... |
|
Cases |
|