Affiliations

• Le Grand v. Darnall

  Supreme Court of the United States · 1829-03-20 · cited 7×

  This case involved a dispute over a land sale contract for Portland Manor in Maryland, where buyer Le Grand refused further payments after doubts arose about seller Nicholas Darnall's ability to convey clear title due to questions about Darnall's manumission from slavery under his father's will and deeds. The core issue was whether Darnall, who was about 11 years old at his father's death, qualified for freedom under a 1796 Maryland law requiring that a slave be under 45 and able to work and earn a sufficient livelihood at the time freedom would commence. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's ruling that Darnall held valid title, reasoning that witness testimony confirmed his physical and mental capacity to work at the relevant time, the will's devise of property to him implied his freedom, and he was therefore legally able to sell and convey the land.

  propertycivil rights

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (1,343 words)

• Piles v. Bouldin

  Supreme Court of the United States · 1826-03-18 · cited 7×

  This case is an ejectment action brought by the lessees of Bouldin and others against Conrad Piles and others over possession of a 2,500-acre tract in Overton County, Tennessee, originally granted by North Carolina in 1788 and later devised to the plaintiffs. The defendant relied on overlapping later grants from North Carolina (to Rowan in 1798) and Tennessee (to Piles in 1808), along with a claim of adverse possession under Tennessee's seven-year statute of limitations. The Circuit Court refused the defendant's requested jury instruction on interpreting the deed from Rowan to Piles, which the Supreme Court upheld as correct because the deed's metes and bounds description conveyed only the second Rowan tract. On the limitations defense, however, the Court held that Piles's peaceable possession of settlements within the overlapping grants for more than seven years barred the plaintiffs' claim, reversing the lower court's ruling on that point and remanding for a new trial.

  propertyprocedure

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (1,877 words)

• Walton v. United States

  Supreme Court of the United States · 1824-03-17 · cited 80×

  The case involved a suit by the United States against Walton, a receiver of public money in a Mississippi land office, to recover over $102,000 in cash and stock he allegedly owed; the government relied on an authenticated Treasury transcript as evidence in an action for money had and received. Walton objected that the suit was improper without prior notification and settlement proceedings under the 1795 act, that recovery could only be on his official bond, and that he was sued in the wrong capacity while the evidence mixed cash and stock. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the United States, holding that the 1797 act expressly made the certified Treasury transcript admissible evidence in such suits and gave the debtor adequate opportunity to present credits at trial, that the receiver remained individually liable, and that stock was legally equivalent to cash for the debt. The Court also ruled the bill of exceptions invalid because it was not taken during trial.

  federal powerprocedure

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (1,848 words)

• The Frances and Eliza

  Supreme Court of the United States · 1823-03-18 · cited 3×

  The case The Frances and Eliza concerned a vessel seized under the navigation act after it touched at the British port of Falmouth while traveling from Margaritta to New Orleans. The court reversed the district court's condemnation and ordered the property restored to the claimant. Evidence established that the vessel's true destination was New Orleans, the stop at Falmouth was limited to obtaining provisions without entering the harbor or obtaining freight, and no actions violated the statute. The navigation act aimed to enforce reciprocal trade rules between U.S. and British vessels, and the facts showed no breach of that policy.

  business & regulatory

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (636 words)