Legal Opinion

Bingham v. Cabbot

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided March 2, 1795PublishedCited by 32 opinions

THIS was a writ of error to remove the proceedings from the Circuit Court, for the district of Massachusetts; and on the return of the reccord, it appeared, that the defendants in error, being joint owners of the armed ship called the Pilgrim, formerly commanded by Hugh Hill, had instituted an action on the case against the Plaintiff in error, in the Circuit Court for the district of, Massachusetts, of June Term, 1794. in which a declaration was filed, containing the…

Read the full summary

THIS was a writ of error to remove the proceedings from the Circuit Court, for the district of Massachusetts; and on the return of the reccord, it appeared, that the defendants in error, being joint owners of the armed ship called the Pilgrim, formerly commanded by Hugh Hill, had instituted an action on the case against the Plaintiff in error, in the Circuit Court for the district of, Massachusetts, of June Term, 1794. in which a declaration was filed, containing the following counts:—1st Count. That the Plaintiff in, Error, at St. Pierre, on the 8th of May, 1779, was indebted to the…

1Opinion of the Court

[By the Court.

This exception need not be farther answered. We are perfectly clear in the opinion, that, although the District Judge was on the bench, yet, if he did not sit in the cause, he was absent in contemplation of law; and that the case otherwise comes within the provisions of the acts of Congress.]

_ ad, Exception. It cannot'be made a queftion on this record, that all the proper Plaintiffs were not joined in the a ilion ; fihce the jury have found the AJfumpfit as it was laid in the declaration. Befides, there is. nothing to fhew, that there were any other parties; the' owners and…

2Cited by32 opinions

  1. Nos. 96-5132, 96-5416Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1997
  2. President of the Bank of the United States v. MossSupreme Court of the United States · 1847
  3. Holman v. Carpenter Technology Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1980
  4. Watkins v. MooneyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1903
  5. Levy v. HitscheSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1888

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API