JOHN CONARD, MARSHAL OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR
v.
FRANCIS H. NICOLL, DEFENDANT IN ERROR

U.S. | 1830-01-01
4 Pet. 291 Supreme Court of the United States (1830) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 7 L. Ed. 862 · 1830 U.S. LEXIS 479 · SCDB 1830-019
Cited by 16 cases
Opinion of the Court
Mr Justice Baldwin

Mr Justice Baldwin delivered the opinion of the Court.

This cause has been submitted without argument; It is in all its leading features, both in the points of law which arose and the evidence given at the trial, so similar to the case of Conard vs. The Atlantic Insurance Company, decided by this court at January term 1828, 1 Peters, 386, that we do not think it necessary to enter into an examination of the principles on which the judge submitted the cause to the jury. They appear to us to be in perfect accordance with the opinion delivered in that case, on great deliberation; of the entire correctness of which we do not entertain a doubt.

There is no error in the record of the circuit court, and the judgment is affirmed, with six per cent interest and costs.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Keystone Driller Co. v. Gen. Excavator Co., 290 U.S. 240 (U.S. 1933)
    …tion between the device covered by the first Downie patent and those covered by the other patents, taken in connection with the use to which plaintiff put the Byers decree, is amply sufficient to bring these cases within the maxim. Conard v. Nicoll, 4 Pet. 291, 297. Clarke v. White, 12 Pet. 178, 193. Carrington v. The Ann Pratt, 18 How. 63, 67. Kitchen v. Rayburn, 19 Wall. 254, 263. Decrees affirmed. * They are Clutter Patent No. 1,317,431, issued September 30, 1919; Downie Patent No. 1,511,114, issued…
  • Bramwell v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 269 U.S. 483 (U.S. 1926)
    …s property; there is no exception, and no regard is had to the purpose or manner of the assignment; and they include all cases in which an act of bankruptcy is committed under the laws of a State or under a national bankruptcy law. Conard v. Nicoll, 4 Pet. 291, 307, 308; United States v. Oklahoma, supra, 262. The priority act does not expressly require that the insolvent debtor should be “ divested ” or that the person on whom is imposed the duty to pay the United States first shall become “ invested ” wi…
  • Detroit Tr. Co. v. THE Thomas Barlum, 293 U.S. 21 (U.S. 1934)
    …t the money was appropriated to purposes wholly unconnected with the voyage.” The lender is not presumed to lend “ upon the faith of any particular appropriation of the money.” Conard v. Atlantic Insurance Co., 1 Pet. 386, 437. See Conard v. Nicoll, 4 Pet. 291, 310; 3 Kent’s Com., 361; note (e); The Draco, supra, pp. 188, 189. It is also to be noted that the jurisdiction granted to the admiralty by the Ship Mortgage Act is exclusive. If a mortgage is within the Act, there can be no suit to foreclose it i…

Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw