| Title | Citation | Year | Summary | Most Relevant | Type | Status |
| Deihl v. King |
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (May 01, 1820) |
1820 |
On the argument of this case, the only question raised was this; is the limitation over of the legacy to Henry King, junr., a good one, or did it vest in him absolutely; or, in other words, was it to take effect after an indefinite failure of issue, or confined to a failure of issue on the death of the first taker? The court decided that it was... |
|
Cases |
|
| Denton v. English |
2 Nott & McC. 581, Constitutional Court of Appeals of South Carolina (November 01, 1820) |
1820 |
An executed contract, though founded on an immoral consideration, is binding on the parties to it, at Common Law. |
|
Cases |
|
| Didlake v. Hooper |
Gilmer 194, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (October 31, 1820) |
1820 |
The court is of opinion that the limitation in the will of Unity Hooper is good; and that the decree of dissolution is therefore erroneous. The decree is reversed with costs; and the cause remanded for farther proceedings, according to the principles here stated. See Higgenbotham v. Rucker, 2 Call, 316. Royall v. Eppes, 2 Munf. 491. Dunn v. Bray, 1... |
|
Cases |
|
| DISTRIBUTION OF FORFEITURES. |
5 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 721 (February 05, 1820) |
1820 |
|
|
Administrative Decisions & Guidance |
|
| Dunn v. Vail |
7 Mart.(o.s.) 437, Supreme Court of Louisiana (January 01, 1820) |
1820 |
Appeal from the court of the third district. |
|
Cases |
|
| Estill's Heirs v. Clay |
2 A.K.Marsh. 497, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (October 06, 1820) |
1820 |
Green Clay and Higgason Grubbs, filed their bill in the court below, stating, that James and Edmund Estill had entered into partnership for the purpose of taking up and securing lands on the 11th February, 1778. That on the 5th of July, 1781, for a valuable consideration, James Estill sold to William Hoy 700 acres, part of a pre-emption of 1,000... |
|
Cases |
|
| Evans' Ex'rs v. Rogers |
2 Nott & McC. 563, Constitutional Court of Appeals of South Carolina (November 01, 1820) |
1820 |
A new trial will not be granted on the ground of new evidence being discovered after the trial. Where a person purchases property at Sheriff's Sale, at which the owner was present, it will not be presumed that he purchased as the agent of the owner, without strong testimony. A sheriff's Sale of personal property need not be evidenced by a return on... |
|
Cases |
|
| Fleming v. Slocum |
18 Johns. 403, Supreme Court of New York (January 01, 1820) |
1820 |
A court of law has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Chancery, in cases of fraud. Where a vendor is guilty of a fraudulent concealment of material facts, in relation to the sale, to the injury of the vendee, an action at law is maintainable, to recover damages. But the fraud must be proved; it cannot be presumed. Therefore, where, in the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Fleming v. Slocum |
18 Johns. 403 (January 01, 1820) |
1820 |
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 |
|
| Fox v. Dawson's Curator |
8 Mart.(o.s.) 94, Supreme Court of Louisiana (May 01, 1820) |
1820 |
Appeal from the court of the first district. |
|
Cases |
|
| Francoise v. Delaronde |
8 Mart.(o.s.) 619, Supreme Court of Louisiana (July 01, 1820) |
1820 |
Appeal from the court of the first district. |
|
Cases |
|
| Gibbons v. Ogden |
17 Johns. 488, Supreme Court of New York (January 01, 1820) |
1820 |
The several acts of the legislature of this state, granting and securing to certain persons, the sole and exclusive right of using and navigating boats or vessels, by steam or fire, in the waters of this state, for a certain term of years, are constitutional and valid acts; and an injunction may be issued by the Court of Chancery to restrain the... |
|
Cases |
The case or administrative decision is no longer good law for at least one of the points it contains. |
| Gist v. Cole |
2 Nott & McC. 456, Constitutional Court of Appeals of South Carolina (May 01, 1820) |
1820 |
Where property has been levied on by an execution, issued under the Patrol Law, it cannot be taken from the officer who has it in possession, by a writ of replevin. |
|
Cases |
|
| Greenhow's Adm'x and Heirs v. Harris |
6 Munf. 472, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (January 25, 1820) |
1820 |
1. A sale of Bank Stock at whatever price, is not usurious, unless the object be to borrow money at more than lawful interest, and not to purchase stock, and the price of the stock be graduated as a device to effect that object; or there be a combination between the seller of the stock on credit, and a person to whom the buyer sells it for cash; in... |
|
Cases |
|
| Griffin v. Graham |
1 Hawks 96, Supreme Court of North Carolina (June 01, 1820) |
1820 |
It is impossible to read this will without wishing the objects of it may be lawfully accomplished, since their nature is so purely benevolent, and they promise to afford such extensive benefits to the part of the state where the trust is to be carried into execution. But this very circumstance admonishes a judge to be cautious in every step he... |
|
Cases |
|
| Head v. Head |
3 A.K.Marsh. 112, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (December 06, 1820) |
1820 |
On the rendition of the opinion in this case, to be found in 1st Marsh. 46, Messrs. Bibb and Talbot presented the following petition for a rehearing: The counsel for Head's administrators respectfully solicit a rehearing of the cause, and whilst the rules of the court permit such motions, and the practice of court is to grant they trust that the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Helm v. Miller |
17 Johns. 296 (January 01, 1820) |
1820 |
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 |
|
| Hicks v. Martin |
9 Mart.(o.s.) 47, Supreme Court of Louisiana (September 01, 1820) |
1820 |
Appeal from the court of the sixth district. |
|
Cases |
|
| Hinds v. Terry |
Walker 80, Supreme Court of Mississippi (June 01, 1820) |
1820 |
That counsel did not continue to press the examination of a witness unwilling to testify, lest the court might commit the witness for a contempt, is no ground for a new trial. The court will not grant a new trial upon the suggestion of the discovery of new and material evidence since the trial, unless the truth of the suggestion is fully... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hodges v. Biggs |
2 A.K.Marsh. 220, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (April 17, 1820) |
1820 |
ON AN APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE FLEMING CIRCUIT COURT. This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court, obtained by Biggs on the trial of the general issue, in an action brought by him against Hodges. The declaration contains two counts, but as the points made in this court relate exclusively to the second, our attention need be turned... |
|
Cases |
|
| Hopkins v. Buck |
3 A.K.Marsh. 110, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (December 05, 1820) |
1820 |
This was a warrant sued out from a justice of the peace, by the appellee against the appellant, for the forcible entry and detainer of a house. The jury having found the appellant guilty of the forcible entry and detainer, he traversed the inquest and took the case to the circuit court. On the trial of the traverse it appeared that the house in... |
|
Cases |
|
| Horton v. Hagler |
1 Hawks 48, Supreme Court of North Carolina (June 01, 1820) |
1820 |
If the Clerk had certified only, that the bill of sale was duly proved, it must have been understood that the death of the subscribing witness was proved, and that his handwriting was likewise established in a proper manner. So much respect is paid to the acts of a Court of Record, that they must be received as regular, when so certified by the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Humble v. Humble |
3 A.K.Marsh. 123, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (December 06, 1820) |
1820 |
On the 5th of January, 1791, Conrad Humble, the ancestor of the parties to the present contest, made and published his last will and testament in writing; and after the accustomed preamble, declares, I do make and ordain this my last will and testament, touching such worldly estate wherewith it has pleased God to bless me with, in this life, I... |
|
Cases |
|
| Inhabitants of Berkley v. Inhabitants of Somerset |
16 Mass. 454, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (October 01, 1820) |
1820 |
A child born to one who had been warned to depart the town, under the provincial act of 4 Will. & Mar., gained a settlement in such town by a year's residence, after coming of age, without being warned to depart. ASSUMPSIT for expenses incurred by the plaintiffs in the support of one James Marvel, alleged to have his settlement in Somerset. It was... |
|
Cases |
|
| Jackson ex dem. Herkimer v. Billinger |
18 Johns. 368 (January 01, 1820) |
1820 |
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 |
|
| Jaques v. Methodist Episcopal Church |
17 Johns. 548, Court for the Correction of Errors of New York (January 01, 1820) |
1820 |
An appeal from a final decree in a cause opens for the consideration of this court, all prior or interlocutory orders or decrees, in any way connected with the merits of the final decree. A final decree is that which is made when all the material facts in a cause have been ascertained, so as to enable the Court of Chancery to understand and decide... |
|
Cases |
|
| Johnson v. Brailsford |
2 Nott & McC. 272, Constitutional Court of Appeals of South Carolina (January 01, 1820) |
1820 |
The degree of burning, cancelling, tearing, or obliterating, necessary to the revocation of a will, according to the statute of frauds, must depend on the circumstances of the case. Where a will has been interlined, and crossed in places, and the seals torn, and the jury find that it was done animo revocandi, this is a sufficient revocation. The... |
|
Cases |
|
| Knight v. Hall, |
7 Mart.(o.s.) 410, Supreme Court of Louisiana (January 01, 1820) |
1820 |
Appeal from the court of the third district. |
|
Cases |
|
| Knight v. Yarbrough |
Gilmer 27, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (June 13, 1820) |
1820 |
W. devised property to his wife with power to sell, &c., or to dispose of among children and grand-children as she pleased; the wife gave part to a son-in-law, and made no provision for some of the children, and some of the grand-children; this is an imperfect execution of the power, and void. Where an object of the bounty has received any thing by... |
|
Cases |
|
| Le Tigre |
15 F.Cas. 404, Circuit Court, D New Jersey (October 01, 1820) |
1820 |
Appeal from the district court of the United States for the district of New Jersey. In admiralty. |
|
Cases |
|
| Livaudais' Heirs v. Fon |
8 Mart.(o.s.) 161, Supreme Court of Louisiana (May 01, 1820) |
1820 |
Appeal from the court of the parish and city of New-Orleans. |
|
Cases |
|
| Lyons v. Brown |
Gilmer 105, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (June 10, 1820) |
1820 |
A deed conveyed lands (excepting several prizes drawn by fortunate adventurers in the maker's lottery,) a prize drawn by a ticket proved to have been delivered to one of the trustees and superintendants of the lottery, without its appearing whether the ticket was sold or not, is within the exception. [Quære.] THE heirs of Peter Lyons, who was... |
|
Cases |
|
| Marie v. Avart's Heirs |
8 Mart.(o.s.) 512, Supreme Court of Louisiana (July 01, 1820) |
1820 |
Appeal from the court of the parish and city of New Orleans. [For prior opinion, see Marie v. Avart, 6 Mart. (O. S.) 731. For subsequent opinion, see Same v. Avart's Heirs, 10 Mart. (O. S.) 25.] This case, which was originally instituted against the deceased's executor alone, was before this court, in June term, 1819, and remanded. On its return to... |
|
Cases |
|
| Mariner v. Kershaw |
2 Del.Cas. 576, Court of Chancery of Delaware (August 02, 1820) |
1820 |
Bill in chancery from Sussex County. . . . The Chancellor wrote the following letter to Thomas Cooper, Esquire, counsel for the complainant. Dover, August 4, 1820. Dear Sir, I do not perceive in the bill sent to me by Robert Mariner against Sally Kershaw, any deficiency of title in Mitchell Kershaw, in his lifetime and at the time of his death, to... |
|
Cases |
|
| Mariner v. Kershaw |
2 Del.Cas. 576 (August 02, 1820) |
1820 |
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 |
|
| Mark v. Lawrence |
5 H. & J. 64, Court of Appeals of Maryland (June 01, 1820) |
1820 |
An action may be supported against a deputy sheriff for malfeasance, not in his capacity of deputy sheriff, but as a wrong doer. If a deputy sheriff in selling goods under a fieri facias, commits a fraud, and the plaintiff in the judgment, on which the fi fa. issued, is satisfied his debt, an action of trover may be sustained by the defendant in... |
|
Cases |
|
| Marshall v. Beverley |
18 U.S. 313, Supreme Court of the United States (March 09, 1820) |
1820 |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Virginia. Carter Beverley, being indebted to the appellant, Horace Marshall, assigned to him several bills of exchange, amounting, in the aggregate, to 900l. sterling, which had been drawn by the respondent, Peter R. Beverley, on Bird Beverley, of London, in favour of the said Carter Beverley. These bills were... |
|
Cases |
|
| Marshall v. Booker |
9 Tenn. 13, Supreme Court of Errors and Appeals of Tennessee (March 01, 1820) |
1820 |
1st. What are the legal consequences of Kearny's being indebted, at the time of this conveyance to a trustee for the benefit of his wife and children? If the plaintiff were a creditor it would render the transaction void as to him; but he is not a creditor but a subsequent purchaser for a valuable consideration, and as to the latter, it is not a... |
|
Cases |
|
| Martineau v. Hooper |
8 Mart.(o.s.) 699, Supreme Court of Louisiana (September 01, 1820) |
1820 |
Appeal from the court of the sixth district. |
|
Cases |
|
| Mayo v. Tomkies |
6 Munf. 520, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (March 08, 1820) |
1820 |
1. In a suit in Chancery, to foreclose a mortgage, against purchasers claiming under a devisee of the mortgagor, not only the persons from whom they immediately derive their title, but also the said devisee, or his heirs, and all other devisees of the equity of redemption, ought to be made parties; notwithstanding such equity was devised to some of... |
|
Cases |
|
| McAlexander v. Harris |
6 Munf. 465, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (January 19, 1820) |
1820 |
1. In an action for words, proof of circumstances of suspicion, not amounting to full justification, is not admissible, in mitigation of damages, on the plea of not guilty. 2. Proof of parol declarations by the defendant, after the institution of the suit for slander, that he did not mean to charge the plaintiff with the crime alledged by the... |
|
Cases |
|
| McColgan v. Huston |
2 Nott & McC. 444, Constitutional Court of Appeals of South Carolina (May 01, 1820) |
1820 |
Where a writ of replevin is lodged with the sheriff, who retakes part of the goods, and returns Elongata as to the rest, a Withernam may issue. An alias and pluries are unnecessary in this state, as a writ of replevin is a returnable writ; and therefore on the return of Elongata on the Original writ, a Withernam may issue. Where property taken by a... |
|
Cases |
|
| McDowall v. Branham |
2 Nott & McC. 572, Constitutional Court of Appeals of South Carolina (November 01, 1820) |
1820 |
A. took a judgment of assets quando acciderint against an administratrix; and after said judgment, certain property which was claimed by the administratrix in her own right, (which was not mentioned in the appraisement of the intestate's estate, nor stated in the account of the administratrix rendered to the ordinary,) was declared by the... |
|
Cases |
|
| McNeil v. Coleman |
8 Mart.(o.s.) 373, Supreme Court of Louisiana (July 01, 1820) |
1820 |
Appeal from the court of the first district. |
|
Cases |
|
| Nagel v. Mignot |
7 Mart.(o.s.) 657, Supreme Court of Louisiana (April 01, 1820) |
1820 |
Appeal from the court of the first district. This suit was brought for the amount of the defendant's promissory note, which was alleged to be lost. He pleaded the general issue, non-age, and the absence of a legal consideration. There was judgment against him, and he appealed. The evidence consisted in depositions which came up with the record.... |
|
Cases |
|
| Neal v. McCombs |
10 Tenn. 10, Supreme Court of Errors and Appeals of Tennessee (May 01, 1820) |
1820 |
Permitting the heir, upon a scire facias against him, to contest the existence of the debt, is productive of no injury to the creditor, and is but an act of justice to the heir. In common cases the plaintiff must substantiate his claim or prove his debt. Why? Because the law must see an injury before it awards a recompense--it must see a debt... |
|
Cases |
|
| Palfrey v. Rivas |
7 Mart.(o.s.) 371, Supreme Court of Louisiana (January 01, 1820) |
1820 |
Appeal from the court of the third district. |
|
Cases |
|
| Patterson v. McGahey |
8 Mart.(o.s.) 486, Supreme Court of Louisiana (July 01, 1820) |
1820 |
Appeal from the court of the first district. |
|
Cases |
|
| Plumpton v. Cook |
2 A.K.Marsh. 450, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (October 04, 1820) |
1820 |
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT. This was an attachment sued out from a justice of the peace for Fayette county, by Plumpton against Cook, as an absconding debtor, and returnable to the circuit court of that county. On calling the suit, the circuit court on the motion of the defendant, dismissed the attachment for the... |
|
Cases |
|
| Pratt's Lessee v. Flamer |
5 H. & J. 10, Court of Appeals of Maryland (June 01, 1820) |
1820 |
This was an action of ejectment brought to recover three tracts of land, to wit, Piccadilly, Vickars' Venture, and Dunn's Range; the cause was tried on a case stated, and judgment given in favour of the defendant. The case stated in substance is, that William Vickars being seized in fee of two of the tracts, Piccadilly and Vickars' Venture, on the... |
|
Cases |
|