Hills v. Ross
Supreme Court of the United States
THIS caufe came again before the court (fee Ant.p. 1847 and after a difcuffion upon the merits, it became a quef-' feion, whether there had been a regular appearance of.the par-, ties to the fuit below ? The libel was filed by the Britijh Conful, on behalf of Walter Refs, againft Hills, May an-j Wood-hridge (who formed a partnership in Charhjlon, under that firm) and John Miller.
Read the full summary
THIS caufe came again before the court (fee Ant.p. 1847 and after a difcuffion upon the merits, it became a quef-' feion, whether there had been a regular appearance of.the par-, ties to the fuit below ? The libel was filed by the Britijh Conful, on behalf of Walter Refs, againft Hills, May an-j Wood-hridge (who formed a partnership in Charhjlon, under that firm) and John Miller. The plea was headed, “the pica of Ebenezer Hills, one of the company of Hills, May, and Wood-bridge, in behalf ofhimfdf and his faid copartners, who are made Defendants in the libel of Walter Rofs and concluded with…
1Opinion of the Court
Bv the Court: J.t appears, that the damages have been affeffed in the courts below, in relation to the value of the goods that were captured : but the Plaintiffs in error were not trefpaffers ab initio ; and, a£ting only as agents, they ihould be made anfwerable for no more than adlually came into their hands. ■ The accounts of fales are regularly colledted and annexed to the record. We are, therefore, at no lofs for a criterion : And we think that the decree ihould be fo modified, as to charge them with the amount of fales, after deducing the duties on the goods, if the duties were paid by…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Harshey v. BlackmarrSupreme Court of Iowa · 1866
- King v. National Oil Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1899
- Clarke v. Slate v. R. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
- Taylor v. CoryellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1825
- Lagow v. PattersonIndiana Supreme Court · 1824
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.