The Planters Bank of Mississippi, Plaintiffs In Error v. Thomas Sharp, Edward Englehard, and Henry Hampton Bridges, Defendants In Error Matthias Baldwin, George Vail, and George Hufty, Merchants and Persons In Trade Under the Name, Style and Firm of Baldwin, Vail Hufty, Plaintiffs In Error v. James Payne, Abner Green, and Robert Wood, Defendants In Error
Decision Date | 01 January 1848 |
Parties | THE PLANTERS' BANK OF MISSISSIPPI, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. THOMAS L. SHARP, EDWARD ENGLEHARD, AND HENRY HAMPTON BRIDGES, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR. MATTHIAS W. BALDWIN, GEORGE VAIL, AND GEORGE HUFTY, MERCHANTS AND PERSONS IN TRADE UNDER THE NAME, STYLE, AND FIRM OF BALDWIN, VAIL, & HUFTY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. JAMES PAYNE, ABNER E. GREEN, AND ROBERT Y. WOOD, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The defendants, Payne, Green, and Wood, were served with process, and appeared and pleaded the general issue. They also pleaded the following special plea, viz.:—...
To continue reading
Request your trial132 cases
-
Oshkosh Waterworks Co. v. City of Oshkosh
...of degree or manner or cause, but of encroaching in any respect on its obligation, dispensing with any part of its force. Bank v. Sharp, 6 How. 301, 12 L. Ed. 447. The substantial question in this case is whether the new charter so affects the remedy as to impair the obligation of plaintiff......
-
Milling Co v. Bondurant
...could include tangible personal property permanently located outside the state. (See original records.) Compare Plainters' Bank v. Sharp, 6 How. 301, 307, 12 L. Ed. 477. 9 Compare, also, Snow v. United States, 118 U. S. 346, 353, 6 Sup. Ct. 1059, 30 L. Ed. 207, Baltimore & Potomac R. Co. v.......
-
State v. Armour & Co.
...have been well defined by the courts of the country, and especially by the Supreme Court of the United States. In Planters' Bank v. Sharp (1848) 6 How. 301, 319 (12 L. Ed. 447), we find the following: “It is to be recollected that our Legislatures stand in a position demanding often the mos......
-
Canterbury v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co.
...See N. Y. M. L. Ins. Co. v. Armstrong, 117 U. S. 591, 6 Sup. Ct. 877, 29 L. Ed. 997, and other cases cited above; Planters' Bank v. Sharp, 6 How. 301, 12 L. Ed. 447;Pearsall v. G. N. Ry., 161 U. S. 663, 664, 16 Sup. Ct. 705, 40 L. Ed. 838;People v. Otis, 90 N. Y. 48. Thus it has been held b......
Request a trial to view additional results