Thomas Brown, Plaintiff In Error v. the Union Bank of Florida, Defendant In Error
Decision Date | 01 January 1846 |
Citation | 11 L.Ed. 1058,45 U.S. 465,4 How. 465 |
Parties | THOMAS BROWN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. THE UNION BANK OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The defendant pleaded the general issue, four special pleas, and payment. To the pleas of the general issue and payment, the plaintiff filed a general replication; a general demurrer to the second, third, and fourth, and a special demurrer to the fifth plea. These demurrers were all sustained, and the cause came on for trial upon the general replication to the first and sixth pleas. The plaintiff made fourteen prayers to the court, ten of which were granted, and four refused. The defendant made two prayers, both of which were granted. The court then gave eight instructions to the jury. Under all these directions, the jury found a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff excepted to the refusal of the court to grant his four prayers, to the granting of the two asked by the defendant, and to five out of the eight instructions given by the court.
The case went up to the Court of Appeals of Florida, which, on the 20th of February, 1844, gave the following judgment:——
From this judgment, a writ of error brought the case up to this court.
The motion to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morgan v. Thompson
...L.Ed. 813; Parcels v. Johnson, 87 U.S. 653, 22 L.Ed. 410; Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 106 U.S. 3, 1 Sup.Ct. 15, 27 L.Ed. 73; Brown v. Union Bank, 4 How. 465, 11 L.Ed. 1058; Pepper v. Dunlap, 5 How. 51, 12 L.Ed. 46; v. Holcombe, 24 How. 426, 16 L.Ed. 742; McComb v. Commissioners of Knox Co., 91......
-
Seward Haseltine v. Central National Bank
...162 U. S. 339, 40 L. ed. 991, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 850. This writ of error is therefore dismissed upon the authority of Brown v. Union Bank, 4 How. 465, 11 L. ed. 1058; Pepper v. Dunlap, 5 How. 51, 12 L. ed. 46; Tracy v. Holcombe, 24 How. 426, 16 L. ed. 742; Moore v. Robbins, 18 Wall. 588, 21 L......
-
Mary Ann Van Ness, Plaintiff In Error v. Cornelius Van Ness, Administrator of John Van Ness
...United States, 12 Pet. 143; Mayberry v. Thompson, 5 How. 121; Ches. & Ohio Canal Co. v. U. Bank of Georgetown, 8 Pet. 259; Brown v. U. Bank of Florida, 4 How. 465; Winston v. Bank of United States, 3 How. 771; Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, § Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of......
-
Tilford v. Ramsey
...20 N. Y. 522.) In cases like the one now before the court, the United States Supreme Court hold that no appeal will lie. (12 Wheat. 135; 4 How. 465; 5 How. 51.) The Circuit Court, in general term, in its discretion, may grant a new trial on questions of fact, just as the special term may; a......