COTTON PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, VERSUS WALLACE
COTTON PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, VERSUS WALLACE
3 Dall. 302
Supreme Court of the United States (1796)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 1 L. Ed. 612 · SCDB 1796-007 · 1796 U.S. LEXIS 403
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
It is ordered, that the Defendant in error recover as damages againft the Plaintiff in error the fum of 3)515 dollars and 11⅝cents, being the intereft on 34,841 dollar^ and cents, the amount.of the fales of the brig Ever ton and her cargo, from the 5th of May, 1795, the date of the decree of the Circuit Court in the faid _caufe, being 1 year, 3 months aud 4 days, at the rate of 8 per cent per annum: And, alfo, that the faid Plaintiff in error, do pay the cofts accrued in this caufe fince the laft term. And a fpecial mandate is awarded to carry this order into execution.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scno Barge Lines, Inc. v. SUN Transp. Co., Inc., 775 F.2d 221 (8th Cir. 1985)
-
N. M. Paterson & Sons v. City OF Chicago, 324 F.2d 254 (7th Cir. 1963)
-
THE Admiral Fiske. Petition of Pac. S. S. Co. (W.D. Wash. 1929)…secondary to the cargo claimants in the event the Admiral Fiske elaim was sustained. The function of the disclosure is to defeat the opposition, not to sustain their own claim. Hartford Acc. & Ind. Co. v. S. P. Co., 273 U. S. 207, 47 S. Ct. 357, 7, 1 L. Ed. 612, does not in any sense take from the holdings of Judge Hand, above referred to. The objection is sustained, and the rule to answer denied. On Exceptions to Answer, etc. . In response to monition on petition for limitation of liability, Mailliard…