JAMES D. WOLF
v.
GEORGE F. USHER

U.S. | 1830-01-01
Mr Coxe, for plaintiff; Mr Whipple, for defendant.
3 Pet. 269 Supreme Court of the United States (1830) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 7 L. Ed. 675 · 1830 U.S. LEXIS 538 · SCDB 1830-027
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion

Full opinion text not available for this case.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • United States v. Waddell & Others, 112 U.S. 76 (U.S. 1884)
    …a point very clearly. The third does not. It leaves us to iArander over the Avhole field of conjecture for any possible objection to the information, without pointing to any distinct proposition of law on Avhich the judges divided. De Wolf v. Usher, 3 Pet. 269; Sadler v. Hoover, 7 How. 646 ; Wilson v. Barnum, 8 How. 258; Daniels v. Railroad Co., 3 Wall. 250; Havemeyer v. Iowa County, 3 Wall. 294; Ward v. Chamberlain, 2 Black, 430. If we look beyond the certificate of the judges to the demurrer itself, Av…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw