Legal Opinion

Otteridge v. Thompson

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

Decided December 15, 1814PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Assumpsit. Plea, alien enemy. Replication that the plaintiff, at the time of the impetration of the writ, was resident in the United States, with the license of the government. General rejoinder, and issue. said that the replication was according to a form in Story’s Pleadings, and cited Wells'v. Williams, 1 Ld.

Read the full summary

Assumpsit. Plea, alien enemy. Replication that the plaintiff, at the time of the impetration of the writ, was resident in the United States, with the license of the government. General rejoinder, and issue. said that the replication was according to a form in Story’s Pleadings, and cited Wells'v. Williams, 1 Ld. Raym. 282; 1 Salk. 46, S. C.; Sparenburg v. Bannatyne, 1 Bos. & Pul. 163, 165, and Clarke v. Johnson, 10 Johns. 59. It was proved that the plaintiff was a mechanic, and was here before the war, and continued to reside here until the action was brought. objected that the defendant…

1Opinion of the Court

The Court,

at the request of the plaintiff’s counsel, instructed the jury that, from the circumstances above stated, they might presume that the plaintiff was residing here under the permission and license of the government, although he had not reported himself according to the proclamation.

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Uberti v. MaiaticoDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1942
  2. Caparell v. GoodbodyNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1942
  3. Manaka v. Monterey Sardine Industries, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 1942

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

Powered by the Exa API