| Title | Citation | Year | Summary | Most Relevant | Type | Status |
| Moore's Assignee v. King |
12 Mart.(o.s.) 261, Supreme Court of Louisiana (August 01, 1822) |
1822 |
Appeal from the court of the fifth district. |
|
Cases |
|
| Morgan v. Robinson |
12 Mart.(o.s.) 76, Supreme Court of Louisiana (June 01, 1822) |
1822 |
Appeal from the court of the first district. |
|
Cases |
|
| Murray v. Coster |
20 Johns. 576, Supreme Court, New York (January 01, 1822) |
1822 |
Where there is a joint purchase of goods, and one of the purchasers takes the whole goods, and agrees to account to the other for his share of them, or of the nett proceeds, and to charge no commissions in case of sale, this is not a trade of merchandise, between merchant and merchant, their factors, or servants, within the meaning of... |
|
Cases |
|
| Nicholls v. Roland |
11 Mart.(o.s.) 190, Supreme Court of Louisiana (March 01, 1822) |
1822 |
Appeal from the court of the fourth district. |
|
Cases |
|
| Norwood v. Duncan |
10 Mart.(o.s.) 708, Supreme Court of Louisiana (February 01, 1822) |
1822 |
Appeal from the court of the first district. |
|
Cases |
|
| Offut v. Roberts |
12 Mart.(o.s.) 300, Supreme Court of Louisiana (September 01, 1822) |
1822 |
Appeal from the court of the sixth district. [For subsequent opinion, see 1 Mart. (N. S.) 573.] |
|
Cases |
|
| Oothout v. Thompson |
20 Johns. 277, Supreme Court, New York (January 01, 1822) |
1822 |
To an action on the case for a deceit, the defendant pleaded not guilty within six years, on which issue was joined. Held, that proof of an acknowledgment of the fraud, within six years, did not support the issue, or take the case out of the operation of the statute of limitations. THIS was an action on the case, brought to recover damages, for a... |
|
Cases |
|
| Oothout v. Thompson |
20 Johns. 277 (January 01, 1822) |
1822 |
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 Marbletown v. Overseers of Kingston |
20 Johns. 1 (January 01, 1822) |
1822 |
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 |
|
| Patton v. Jones |
3 Del.Cas. 11, Court of Chancery of Delaware (April 01, 1822) |
1822 |
Bill of interpleader, filed to Winter Term (April), 1822. Answer filed. This is an amicable proceeding. The bill and answer, and will of Morgan Jones were delivered to the Chancellor at New Castle, April, 1822, that he might in vacation examine the same and make a decree. The parties were anxious for a speedy determination, and by consent, without... |
|
Cases |
|
| Patton v. Jones |
3 Del.Cas. 11 (April 01, 1822) |
1822 |
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 |
|
| Peagram v. King |
2 Hawks 295, Supreme Court of North Carolina (December 01, 1822) |
1822 |
We do not entertain this bill barely upon the ground that the Complainant has discovered evidence since the trial at Law, (and which he of course could not then avail himself of,) but also from the peculiar nature of that evidence, it going to fix a perjury upon the principal witness in the trial at Law. It is therefore very unlike those cases... |
|
Cases |
|
| Phebe v. Prince |
Walker 131, Supreme Court of Mississippi (December 01, 1822) |
1822 |
The interest which renders a witness incompetent, must be direct and positive, not remote or contingent, and it must be an interest in the event of the suit. If the witness believes that he has an interest in the event of the suit, though that belief be erroneous, he is incompetent, but it is otherwise if he believes that the interest is only... |
|
Cases |
|
| Planters' Bank v. Lanusse |
12 Mart.(o.s.) 157, Supreme Court of Louisiana (July 01, 1822) |
1822 |
Appeal from the court of the first district.10 Martin, 690. |
|
Cases |
|
| Pond v. Smith |
4 Conn. 297, Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut (July 01, 1822) |
1822 |
Where A. had a separate demand against C., who was insolvent, and C. had a demand against A. and B. jointly; it was held, that chancery might apply the former demand in satisfaction of the latter. A trade, by a neutral, in goods contraband of war, is a lawful trade. Therefore, a demand arising out of a voyage from the United States, the object of... |
|
Cases |
|
| Power v. Miller |
2 McCord 220, Constitutional Court of Appeals of South Carolina (November 01, 1822) |
1822 |
Words charging a person with perjury or subornation of perjury are not actionable, unless it appear by a colloquium, or by the words themselves, that they had reference to an oath taken in the course of a judicial proceeding. |
|
Cases |
|
| Prindle v. Glover |
4 Conn. 266, Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut (June 01, 1822) |
1822 |
In an action of trespass against A. and B., the plaintiff, after proving the commission of the trespass by B., claimed, that A. aided and abetted him therein. In support of this claim, the plaintiff proved, that A and B. were together at 12 o'clock at night, about the time when the trespass was committed, and near the place, and had been seen... |
|
Cases |
|
| Quinn v. Stockton |
2 Litt. 343, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (December 16, 1822) |
1822 |
1. A judgment obtained by one administrator against the other, touching the estate of the intestate, is no evidence against the heirs, although the administrator who was plaintiff, never acted. 2. 2. A settlement made by administrators with the county court, except so far as it is impeached, must be taken as prima facie correct; and that part which... |
|
Cases |
|
| Read v. Duncan |
2 McCord 167, Constitutional Court of Appeals of South Carolina (May 01, 1822) |
1822 |
Under a declaration for money had and received, paid, laid out and expended, the plaintiff cannot give in evidence fraud and misrepresentation in the sale of a chattel. Where there has been an express warranty, the action must be upon such warranty, and not upon any implied warranty. Wherever fraud or deceit forms the ground of the right to... |
|
Cases |
|
| Reel's Ex'rs v. Reel |
2 Hawks 63, Supreme Court of North Carolina (June 01, 1822) |
1822 |
This is a motion for a new trial, on the ground that the Court intimated its opinion to the Jury of the matter in issue. The act of Assembly, relative to the duty of a Judge in charging, forbids him to give an opinion whether a fact is fully, or sufficiently proved, such matter being the true office and province of a Jury; and it directs him to... |
|
Cases |
|
| Richardson v. Whitefield |
2 McCord 148, Constitutional Court of Appeals of South Carolina (May 01, 1822) |
1822 |
The filing of consistent double pleas, so far as their merit is concerned, is a mere motion of course, which only requires the signature of council. There may be cases of extreme hardship or gross fraud, which would justify the Circuit Court in rescinding the orders of a preceding term, yet when one Judge has granted leave to plead the statute of... |
|
Cases |
|
| Roberts' Adm'r v. Cocke |
1 Rand. 121, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (April 05, 1822) |
1822 |
There are two questions presented by the record in this case; 1st. Was the transaction in the nature of a mortgage, or a conditional sale? 2nd. If the former, or if there is a doubt on the subject, ought the party to be permitted now to redeem, under all the circumstances of the case? I think there is at least considerable doubt as to the real... |
|
Cases |
|
| Roberts v. Jones |
2 Litt. 88, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (October 14, 1822) |
1822 |
1. A bill in chancery asserting a right under a bill of sale, executed by the defendant to C., and by C. assigned to the complainant, can not be supported by proof of such bill, executed by the defendant to K. by K. assigned to C. and by C. assigned to the complainant. 2. 2. The Court of Appeals will never enquire into the regularity of taking... |
|
Cases |
|
| Saunders' Heirs v. Saunders' Ex'rs |
2 Litt. 314, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (December 13, 1822) |
1822 |
1. Where executors have delayed to apply to the county court to appoint commissioners to settle their accounts until after the commencement of a suit in chancery by the devisees, the court of chancery has acquired jurisdiction, and the matter ought to be investigated there. 2. An ex parte settlement made with the county court after the service of a... |
|
Cases |
|
| Schobee v. Dedman |
2 Litt. 116, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (October 16, 1822) |
1822 |
1. Quashing a sheriff's return on execution, that he has sold the property on a credit and taken bond for the payment of the purchase money, does not per se, set aside the sale, or quash the bond, especially where the court had refused to make any order, setting aside the sale, but left it to the legal operation of the quashal of the sheriff's... |
|
Cases |
|
| Scott v. McMillen |
1 Litt. 302, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (June 17, 1822) |
1822 |
1. The general rule is, that where the complainant's demand is merely legal, and his resort to equity is for the purpose of setting aside fraudulent conveyances of his debtor's property, he must, before filing his bill, obtain a judgment at law. 1. 2. But this rule does not apply, in this country, to cases where the debtor resides or has removed... |
|
Cases |
|
| Shreve v. His Creditors |
11 Mart.(o.s.) 30, Supreme Court of Louisiana (March 01, 1822) |
1822 |
Appeal from the court of the first district. |
|
Cases |
|
| Skillman v. Lacey |
12 Mart.(o.s.) 404, Supreme Court of Louisiana (September 01, 1822) |
1822 |
Appeal from the court of the fifth district. [For subsequent opinion, see Skillman v. Lacy, 5 Mart. (N. S.) 50.] |
|
Cases |
|
| Smith v. Roberts |
12 Mart.(o.s.) 432, Supreme Court of Louisiana (September 01, 1822) |
1822 |
Appeal from the court of the sixth district. |
|
Cases |
|
| State v. Allen |
2 McCord 55, Constitutional Court of Appeals of South Carolina (January 01, 1822) |
1822 |
The act authorizing the tax collector to issue executions against persons who shall make default in returning their taxable property and paying their taxes is not unconstitutional. The act of 1820, which imposes a penalty of ten thousand dollars on any person who shall sell any lottery tickets within this state, or shall keep any office for that... |
|
Cases |
|
| State v. Cole |
2 McCord 117, Constitutional Court of Appeals of South Carolina (May 01, 1822) |
1822 |
If persons who have assembled for a lawful purpose do afterwards associate together to commit an unlawful act, such association will be considered an assembling together for that purpose: So three or more patrolling may commit a riot. The captain of a beat company cannot constitute himself the captain of patrol. Where an act imposes a penalty, and... |
|
Cases |
|
| State v. Lewis |
2 Hawks 98, Supreme Court of North Carolina (June 01, 1822) |
1822 |
It is admitted, in this case, that both indictments are for the same felonious taking of the same goods. The Defendant is found guilty of a grand larceny, on that indictment which charges a burglary and stealing. The other indictment is for a robbery; a robbery is a larceny, but of a more aggravated kind. The first is a simple larceny. The other is... |
|
Cases |
|
| State v. Montague |
2 McCord 257, Constitutional Court of Appeals of South Carolina (November 01, 1822) |
1822 |
After a prisoner has plead not guilty, and the jury charged, it is too late to move to plead a misnomer. Where there are two or more distinct counts in an indictment, charging different and distinct offences, and punishable differently, a general verdict of guilty is bad. |
|
Cases |
|
| State v. Newell |
1 Mo. 248, Supreme Court of Missouri (November 01, 1822) |
1822 |
This was an indictment for obtaining bills of exchange by false pretenses. There are three counts in the indictment, for three several and distinct offenses. To this indictment there was a general demurrer, and the demurrer was, by the Court, sustained, and judgment for the defendant; to reverse which, is the object of the present writ of error.... |
|
Cases |
|
| State v. Orleans Nav. Co. |
11 Mart.(o.s.) 38, Supreme Court of Louisiana (March 01, 1822) |
1822 |
Appeal from the court of the first district. |
|
Cases |
|
| Steer v. Ward |
10 Mart.(o.s.) 679, Supreme Court of Louisiana (February 01, 1822) |
1822 |
Appeal from the court of the third district. |
|
Cases |
|
| Sterling v. Sherwood |
20 Johns. 204, Supreme Court, New York (August 01, 1822) |
1822 |
A plea to a declaration for a libel, justified as to part of the libel charged, but did not profess to answer the whole, though it prayed judgment of the action generally: Held, that the plaintiff might demur to such defective plea; and that, by so doing, he did not discontinue his suit. THIS was an action for a libel. The declaration contained two... |
|
Cases |
|
| Sterling v. Sherwood |
20 Johns. 204 (August 01, 1822) |
1822 |
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 |
|
| Stevenson v. Miller |
2 Litt. 306, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (December 13, 1822) |
1822 |
1. If a complainant in chancery obtains a void injunction. and by so doing subjects those against whom it is obtained, to vexation and expence, the bond which he executed in order to obtain it, is not void in consequence of the injunction's being void. 2. 2. The defendant in a suit on an injunction bond, where the injunction has been awarded by... |
|
Cases |
|
| Strode v. Churchill |
2 Litt. 75, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (October 12, 1822) |
1822 |
1. A copy of a deed which had been admitted to record in a late district court of Virginia, authenticated by the clerk and certified by the presiding judge of one of the present circuit courts of Virginia, is admissible evidence, the clerk stating in his certificate that he is keeper of the records of the district court in which it was admitted to... |
|
Cases |
|
| Surgat v. Potter |
12 Mart.(o.s.) 365, Supreme Court of Louisiana (September 01, 1822) |
1822 |
Appeal from the court of the seventh district. |
|
Cases |
|
| Taliaferro v. Horde's Adm'r |
1 Rand. 242, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (December 06, 1822) |
1822 |
The chancellor not having entered up any decree against the appellant, directing him to pay to the appellee, any portion of the rent of 600l., which, by the deed of the 16th of December, 1804, he was annually to pay to Mrs. Alexander, during her life; this court will not anticipate the question of his liability to the appellee therefor. The only... |
|
Cases |
|
| Teakle v. Bailey |
2 Brock 43, Circuit Court, D Virginia (May 01, 1822) |
1822 |
In equity. |
|
Cases |
|
| The Marianna Flora |
3 Mason 116, Circuit Court, D Massachusetts (October 01, 1822) |
1822 |
This was an appeal from a decree of the district court on the libel of the Portuguese ship Marianna Flora, by Robert F. Stockton, commander of the United States ship of war, the Alligator, in behalf of himself and his officers and crew; Philip Marett, the Portuguese vice consul, and Vertura Anacleto De Britto, being claimants and respondents in... |
|
Cases |
|
| Thompson v. Chretien |
12 Mart.(o.s.) 250, Supreme Court of Louisiana (August 01, 1822) |
1822 |
Appeal from the court of the fifth district. |
|
Cases |
|
| Turner v. Turner |
1 Litt. 101, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (April 15, 1822) |
1822 |
1. There is less presumption of sanity at the time when a will was executed, where the testator is shown to have been previously afflicted with the mental debility attending old age, than there is where the mental malady is ordinary lunacy. 1. 2. Although the act of assembly requires the attestation of two witnesses to a will at the time of its... |
|
Cases |
|
| Vavasseur v. Bayon |
11 Mart.(o.s.) 639, Supreme Court of Louisiana (June 01, 1822) |
1822 |
Appeal from the court of the second district. [For prior opinion, see 10 Mart. (O. S.) 61.] |
|
Cases |
|
| Waln v. Thompson |
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (December 23, 1822) |
1822 |
It was contended by the counsel for the plaintiff, in the first place, that there was a total loss of the voyage, by the very great interruption and delay which took place, in consequence of the damage at sea, which obliged the ship to put into the Isle of France; but this argument is not sustainable--the interruption of a voyage is not the loss of... |
|
Cases |
|
| Ward v. Brandt |
11 Mart.(o.s.) 331, Supreme Court of Louisiana (May 01, 1822) |
1822 |
Appeal from the court of the first district. |
|
Cases |
|
| Washington & Pittsburgh Turnpike Co. v. Cullen |
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (September 01, 1822) |
1822 |
This action was brought by Cullen & Crane, the plaintiffs below, against The Washington and Pittsburgh Turnpike Company, who are plaintiffs in error. The cause was submitted to arbitrators, who made an award in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendants appealed from the award, and the Court of Common Pleas quashed the appeal, because not entered... |
|
Cases |
|