Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

LIST OF CASES.

American Fur Company vs. The United States,

358 Anderson, Boyce vs.

150 Ashley et al. The Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky vs. 327 Bank of Columbia vs. Sweeney,

- 671 Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky vs. Ashley et al. 327 Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky vs. Wister et al. - 318 Bank of Hamilton vs. Dudley's heirs,

492 Bank of The United States vs. Carneal,

- 543 Bank of The United States vs. Corcoran,

121 Bank of The United States vs. Owens,

527 Bank of The United States vs. Venable et al.

107 Bank of The United States, Williams vs.

- 96 Bank of The United States vs. Weisiger,

331, 481 Beach os. Viles,

- 675 Beatty et al. vs. Kurtz et al.

566 Black Bird Creek Marsh Company vs. Wilson,

- 241 Boyce 0s. Anderson,

150 Buckner vs. Finley et al.

• 586 Butler, Harper vs.

239 Canter vs. The American and Ocean Insurance Company, 554 Carneal, The Bank of the United States vs.

543 Chirac et al. vs. Reinecker,

- 613 Campbell's Executors vs. Pratt et al.

354 City Council of Charleston vs. Weston et al.

- 449 Collins, Gardner os.

58 Columbian Insurance Company vs. Lawrence,

25 Conolly vs. Taylor et al.

556 Corcoran, The Bank of the United States vs.

- 121 Dandridge vs. Washington's Executors,

370 Darnall, Le Grand vs.

. 664 Dialogue, Pennock et al. vs.

1 Dudley's heirs, The Bank of Hamilton vs.

- 492 English et al. 03. Foxall,

595 Finley et al. Buckner vs.

- 587 Foxall, English et al. os.

595 Foster et al. os. Neilson,

. 254 VOL. II.-2

Gardner vs. Collins,

- 58 Grand, Le vs. Darnall,

664 Harman's lessee, Powell vs.

- 241 Harper vs. Butler, ,

239 Hunt us. Wickliffe,

• 201 Jackson et al. vs. Twentyman,

136 Johnson, Le Roy et al. vs.

186 Jenckes, Patterson vs.

216 Kurtz et al., Beatty et al. v8.

- 566 Lawrence, The Columbian Insurance Company vs.

25 Le Grand vs. Darnall,

- 664 Leland et al., Wilkinson vs.

627 Le Roy et al. vs. Johnson,

- 186 M’Arthur, Reynolds vs.

417 Mandeville et al. vs. Riggs,

482 Mauro, Ritchie vs.

243 Matthewson, Satterlee vs.

380 Neilson, Foster et al. vs.

254 Owens, The Bank of the United States vs.

· 527 Pacard, Van Ness et al. vs.

137 Patterson vs. Jenckes,

- 216 Pennock et al., Dialogue vs.

1 Post Master General vs. Southwick et al.

442 Powell vs. Harman,

241 Pratt et al., Campbell vs.

- 354 Reinecker, Chirac et al. vs.

613 Reynolds vs. M'Arthur,

· 417 Riggs, Mandeville et al. vs.

482 Ritchie vs. Mauro,

· 243 Satterlee vs. Matthewson,

380 Southwick et al., The Post Master General vs.

442 Sumrall, Townley vs.

170 Sweeney, The Bank of Columbia vs.

- 671 Taylor et al., Conolly vs.

556 Townley vs. Sumrall,

· 170 Tolmie, Thompson vs.

157 Thompson vs. Tolmie,

157 Twentyman, Jackson et al. vs.

136 United States, The American Fur Company vs.

358 Van Ness et al. vs. Pacard,

137 Venable et al., The Bank of the United States vs.

- 107 Viles, Beach vs.

675 Washington's Executors, Dandridge vs.

· 370 Weisiger, The Bank of the United States vs.

331, 481 Weston et al. vs. The City Council of Charleston,

· 449 Wickliffe, Hunt vs.

- ,627 Williams vs. The Bank of the United States,

201 Wilkinson vs. Leland et al.

96 Wister et al., The Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky vs. 318

.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Hon. JOHN MARSHALL, Chief Justice.
Hon. BUSHROD WASHINGTON, Associate Justice.
Hon. WILLIAM JOHNSON, Associate Justice.
Hon. GABRIEL DUVALL, Associate Justice.
Hon. JOSEPH STORY, Associate Justice.
Hon. SMITH THOMPSON, Associate Justice.

WILLIAM WIRT, Esq. Attorney General.

William THOMAS Carroll, Esq. Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States.

TENCH RINGOLD, Esq. Marshal.

The Hon. John M'Lean was appointed an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, on the 7th day of March 1819, in the room of the Hon. Robert Trimble, deceased. Mr Justice M'Lean did not take his seat during the term.

The following Gentlemen were admitted to practice at the

Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, at January Term 1829.

James Smith, Hugh S. Legaré, Henry N. Cruger, Sampson Mason, Samuel F. Vinton, M.C. Samuel S. Nicholas, Trevanion B. Dallas, Eli Kirk Price, Joseph H. Bradley, James K. Black, Nathan Sargent, Henry R. Storrs, M.C. Moses Tabbs, Michael Hoffman, M.C. William Redin, Richard A. Buckner, M.C. John Bell, M.C. H. Daniel, M.C. Samuel A. Talcott, William Henry Hurst, Samuel Chew, Mordecai M. Noah, J. L. Riker, J. Johnson, Benjamin Hazard, R. C. Mallary, M.C. C. J. Jack, C. B. Penrose, J. C. Hornblower, Theo. Frelinghuysen, M.C. Frederick De Peyster, Jun. John Varnum, M.C. Nathan Nathans, John W. James,

New York.
South Carolina.
South Carolina.
Ohio.
Ohio.
Kentucky.
Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania.
Washington, D. C.
Delaware.
New York.
New York.
Washington, D. C.
New York.
Georgetown, D. C.
Kentucky.
Tennessee.
Kentucky.
New York.
Indiana.
Pennsylvania.
New York.
New York.
Maryland.
Rhode Island.
Vermont.
Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania.
New Jersey.
New Jersey.
New York.
Massachusetts.
Pennsylvania.
Massachusetts.

THE DECISIONS

OF

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

AT

JANUARY TERM 1829.

ABRAHAM L. PENNOCK & JAMES SELLERS, PLAINTIFFS IN Error

vs. ADAM DIALOGUE.

The record contains, embodied in the bill of exceptions, the whole of the testi

mony and evidence offered at the trial of the cause by each party in support of the issue. It very voluminous, and as no exception was taken to its competency or sufficiency, either generally or for any particular purpose ; it is not properly before this court for consideration, and forms an expensive and unnecessary burthen upon the record. This Court has had occasion, in many cases, to express its regret on account of irregular proceedings of this nature. There was not the slightest necessity of putting any portion of the evidence in this case upon the record; since the opinion of the court, delivered to the jury, presented a general principle of law; and the application of the

evidence to it was left to the jury. [15] It is no ground of reversal, that the court below omitted to give directions to

the jury upon any points of law which might arise in the cause, where it was not requested by either party at the trial. It is sufficient for us, that the

court has given no erroneous directions. [16] If either party considers any point presented by the evidence, omitted in the

charge of the court, it is competent for such party to require an opinion from the court upon that point. The court cannot be presumed to do more in ordinary cases, than to express its opinion upon questions, which the parties them

selves have raised on the trial. [16] It has not been, and indeed it cannot be denied, that an inventor may abandon

VOL. II.-A

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »