McIlvaine v. Coxe's Lessee
Supreme Court of the United States
This cause was now argued again by Du Ponceau and Ingersoll, for the plaintiff in error, and by Rawle and E. Tilghman, for the defendant. The report of the former argument (2 Cr. 280), having been so full, it is deemed unnecessary to state more of the argument, at this term, than will be sufficient to show the points to which additional authorities were adduced.
1Opinion of the Court
Cushing, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court, as follows, (a) — The court deems it unnecessary to declare an opinion upon a point which was much debated in this cause, whether a real British subject, born before the 4th of July 1776 ; who never, from the time of his birth, resided within any of the American colonies or states, can, upon the principles of the common law, take lands by descent in the United States ; because Daniel Coxe, under whom the lessor of the plaintiff claims, was born in the province of New Jersey, long before the declaration of independence, and resided there until…
2Cited by46 opinions
- Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. HyattSupreme Court of the United States · 2019
- Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbour in City of New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1830
- Abigail Ladd v. Jack MarchbanksCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2020
- Boyd v. Nebraska Ex Rel. ThayerSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Skatemore, Inc. v. Gretchen WhitmerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2022
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.