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 Date01 January 1848
PartiesTHE 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
CourtU.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.:—'That the said promissory notes, in the declaration of the said plaintiffs mentioned, were executed and delivered by them, the said defendants, to, and discounted by, the Mississippi Railroad Company, on the 4th day of December, in the year 1839, at the county aforesaid, and thereby became and were the property of the said Mississippi Railroad Company, to wit, on the day and year aforesaid, at...

To continue reading

Request your trial
132 cases
  • Oshkosh Waterworks Co. v. City of Oshkosh
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • 26 Febrero 1901
    ...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
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 10 Octubre 1921
    ...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.
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 17 Febrero 1914
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • 6 Abril 1905
    ...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

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT