Supreme Court of the United States — appointed by James Madison
Oliver v. Piatt
Supreme Court of the United States · 1845-02-26 · cited 217×
This case involved a dispute between the Piatt Company and the Baum Company (later joined as the Port Lawrence Company) over interests in public lands purchased at an 1817 Ohio sale for town development, including how payments, relinquishments to the United States, assignments to trustee Martin Baum, and subsequent transfers affected ownership of specific tracts. The Circuit Court of Ohio, sitting in equity, entered a decree favoring the original plaintiff, which the defendants appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the decree, holding that the facts established the plaintiff's equitable interests through the joint purchases and assignments, that objections such as the statute of limitations were waived by not being raised timely, and that warranties or other defenses did not bar the claims by purchase rather than descent. The Court rejected arguments about apportionment difficulties and found no errors requiring reversal in the master's report or other procedural matters.
propertyprocedure
Andrews v. Wall
Supreme Court of the United States · 1845-02-24 · cited 30×
This case involved a dispute over shares of salvage proceeds from a shipwreck service on the Florida coast between owners of two wrecker vessels, the sloop Globe and the schooner George Washington. The owners of the George Washington petitioned for a portion of the salvage awarded to the Globe based on a prior consortship agreement between the vessels' masters to share such earnings mutually. The lower courts awarded them the share, and upon appeal the Supreme Court affirmed the decree. The Court reasoned that the agreement was a maritime contract enforceable in admiralty jurisdiction, binding on owners and crews despite a change in masters, and that admiralty courts have authority to adjudicate such claims and distribute proceeds in their custody through supplemental proceedings.
procedure
Lessee of Clymer v. Dawkins
Supreme Court of the United States · 1845-02-18 · cited 40×
The case was an ejectment action brought in federal circuit court in Kentucky over an 11,000-acre tract patented in 1806 to George Clymer (one-third) and to Lynch and Blanton (two-thirds); the plaintiff's lessors claimed under Clymer while the defendants claimed under Lynch and Blanton following a 1810 county-court partition that assigned the defendants' parcels exclusively to the latter. The circuit court entered judgment for the defendants on a verdict, after instructing the jury on adverse possession. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the defendants' possession under an exclusive title derived from Lynch and Blanton was adverse to Clymer even if the partition proceedings were defective, that such possession triggered the Kentucky statute of limitations, and that the trial court's jury instructions correctly stated the governing rules on ouster and limitations among tenants in common.
property
Black v. J. W. Zacharie & Co.
Supreme Court of the United States · 1845-01-17 · cited 57×
The case involved a Louisiana attachment proceeding by Zacharie & Co. against shares of stock owned by Black, a South Carolina citizen, which were held by Louisiana banks; Black had previously assigned the stock to Chapman via a trust deed in South Carolina for the benefit of creditors, and Chapman intervened to assert title. The Circuit Court entered judgment for the attaching creditors after a jury verdict. The Supreme Court reversed, holding first that no debt was due to Zacharie & Co. at the time of attachment because outstanding accepted bills of exchange suspended any right of action, and second that the South Carolina assignment was valid under the law of the owner's domicile, passed equitable title to the assignee upon notice to the creditors and banks, and took priority over the later attachment under principles of international comity recognized by Louisiana courts. The Court further held that the lack of a formal transfer on the corporate books did not defeat the assignee's rights against parties with notice.
propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory
Taylor v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States · 1845-01-10 · cited 125×
This case involved a challenge to the forfeiture of imported cloths and cassimeres seized in Pennsylvania under various sections of the Duty Collection Act of 1799 and related revenue statutes, based on allegations of fraudulent undervaluation and nonpayment of duties. The Circuit Court had affirmed a jury verdict for the United States, and the Supreme Court reviewed exceptions raised at trial regarding the seizure's validity, witness competency, evidentiary rulings, and jury instructions. The Court affirmed the judgment, holding that any customs officer could lawfully make the seizure, that customs officers who made the seizure were competent witnesses, that probable cause existed to shift the burden of proof to the claimants under the statute, and that the forfeiture provisions applied to cases of fraudulent undervaluation even if some duties had been paid. The Court further ruled that the claimants had not met their burden to establish the legitimacy of the importation.
criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryfederal powertaxes
Ex Parte City Bank
Supreme Court of the United States · 1844-12-31 · cited 176×
The case concerned an application by the City Bank of New Orleans for a writ of prohibition against the U.S. District Court for Louisiana to halt bankruptcy proceedings initiated by the assignee of a bankrupt debtor, in which the assignee sought to declare the bank's prior seizure, mortgage, and public sale of the debtor's real property null and void under the Bankrupt Act and to recover the property for the estate. The court ruled that it could consider only facts appearing in the district court record and that the district court had jurisdiction to entertain the assignee's petition. It further held that the district court proceedings were not barred by res judicata from prior state court suits. The core reasoning was that section 15 of the Bankrupt Act provides that a sale by an assignee conveys only the same title the bankrupt held immediately before the bankruptcy order and therefore cannot divest any lien existing at that time, consistent with the principle that a prior lien gives a prior claim to satisfaction.
business & regulatorypropertyprocedurefederal power