Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore Railroad v. Howard
Supreme Court of the United States
This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States, for the District of Maryland. It was a complicated ■ case, the decision of which involved numeyous points of law, as will be seen by the syllabus prefixed to this statement. ■ There were six exceptions to the admissibility of evidence taken during the progress of the trial in the Circuit Court. The plaintiff below then offered eleven prayers to the court, and the defendant, thirteen.
Read the full summary
This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States, for the District of Maryland. It was a complicated ■ case, the decision of which involved numeyous points of law, as will be seen by the syllabus prefixed to this statement. ■ There were six exceptions to the admissibility of evidence taken during the progress of the trial in the Circuit Court. The plaintiff below then offered eleven prayers to the court, and the defendant, thirteen. The court laid aside all the prayers and embodied its instructions to the jury in thirteen propositions.' The facts of the…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Curtis
Sebre Howard brought-his action of-covenant broken, in.the' Circuit Court of the United States for the District of’Maryland, and upon the trial, the defendants took seven bills of exception, which are here for consideration upon a writ of error. Each of them must be separately examined.
The first;- raises the question, whether Howard could prove that a certain suit was pending in Cecil County Court by the testimony of the clerk of that court to the verity of a copy of the docket-entries made in that suit by him, as clerk.
It is not objected that a copy of the docket-entries was produced instead…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Tevis v. YoungCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1858
- Cunningham v. MorrellNew York Supreme Court · 1813
- Greenleaf's Lessee v. BirthSupreme Court of the United States · 1831
- Kane v. Columbian Insurance Co.New York Supreme Court · 1807
3Cited by163 opinions
- New Hampshire v. MaineSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Davis v. WakeleeSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Lawrence Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, an Illinois Corporation David's Restaurant SupplyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Whitacre Partnership v. Biosignia, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2004
- Howard v. Stillwell & Bierce Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
158 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.