Skip to main content

The United States vs. Vanzandt

Case Year
1826
Court Case Term
Court Case Type

“This was an action of debt brought in the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, upon a paymaster’s official bond, against the defendant in error, one of the sureties in that bond. The condition of the bond, as set out upon oyer, is in the following words, viz. ‘That whereas the above bounden John Hall is appointed paymaster of the rifle regiment in the army of the United States; now, if the said J. H.

The United States vs. Kirkpatrick and Others

Case Year
1824
Court Case Term
State
Court Case Type

“This was an action of debt, commenced by the United States, in the Court below, against the defendants in error, J. Kirkpatrick and others, as the obliges of a bond, given by them to the United States, on the 4th of December, 1813, conditioned for the true and faithful discharge of the duties of the office of Collector of direct taxes and internal duties, by Samuel M.

The Post Master General of the United States vs. Early and Others

Case Year
1827
Court Case Term
State
Court Case Type

“This was an action of debt, commenced in the Circuit Court for the district of Georgia, by the District Attorney of the United States for that district, against the defendants, on a bond executed by them, in June 1820, to the Post Master General of the United States, the condition of which, after reciting that Eleazer Early (one of the co-obligors and defendants in the suit) is the Post Master at Savannah, provides that if he shall perform the duties of his office, ‘and shall pay moneys that shall come to his hands for the postages of whatever is by law chargeable with postage, to the Post

John Conard vs. The Atlantic Insurance Company New York

Case Year
1827
Court Case Term
State
Court Case Type

“This was an action of trespass brought in the Circuit Court for the district of Pennsylvania, by the Atlantic Insurance Company of New York, against John Conard, the Marshal of the district of Pennsylvania, for taking and carrying away certain teas, imported from Canton into the port of Philadelphia, on board the ships Addison and Superior. Pleas the general issue, and a special jurisdiction under a fi. fa. against the goods as the property of Edward Thomson. The suit was instituted, and tried under an agreement, which is recited in the following bond.” 

The President, Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States vs. Dandridge and Others

Case Year
1827
Court Case Term
State
Court Case Type

“This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court for the District of Virginia. The original action was debt on a bond, purporting to be signed by Dandridge, as principal, and Carter B. Page, Wilson Allen, James Brown, Jr., Thomas Taylor, Harry Heth, and Andrew Stevenson, as his sureties, and was brought jointly against all the parties.

The United States vs. Six Packages of Goods, Toler, Claimant

Case Year
1821
Court Case Term
State
Court Case Type

“Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New-York. This was a libel of information filed in the Court against certain goods imported from London on the ship Isabella, at the port of New-York, as forfeited under the 67th section of the collection act of the 2d of March, 1799, c.128.”

The Amiable Isabella, Munos. Claimant

Case Year
1821
Court Case Term
Court Case Type

“Appeal from the Circuit Court of North Carolina. This was the case of a ship and cargo, sailing under Spanish colours, and captured by the privateer Roger, Quarles, master, on an ostensible voyage from Havana to Hamburg, but really destined for London, or with an alternative destination, and orders to touch in England for information as to markets, and further instructions.

M'Culloch vs. The State of Maryland et al.

Case Year
1819
Court Case Term
State
Court Case Type

“Error to the Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland. This was an action of debt brought by the defendant in error, John James, who sued as well for himself as for the State of Maryland, in the County Court of Baltimore County, in the said State, against the plaintiff in error, M’Culloch, to recover certain penalties under the act of the legislature of Maryland, hereafter mentioned.

Evans vs. Eaton, February Term, 1818

Case Year
1818
Court Case Term
State
Court Case Type

“Error, to the circuit court for the district of Pennsylvania. This was an action by the plaintiff in error, against the defendant in error, for an alleged infringement of the plaintiff’s patent right to the use of his improved hopper-boy, one of the several machines discovered, invented, improved, and applied by him to the art of manufacturing flour and meal, which patent was granted on the 22d January, 1808. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and gave the notice hereafter stated.

Subscribe to Supreme Court