Vasse v. Smith
Decision Date | 01 February 1810 |
Citation | 6 Cranch 226,10 U.S. 226,3 L.Ed. 207 |
Parties | VASSE v. SMITH |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
To continue reading
Request your trial7 cases
-
Tyler v. People
...facts, error, the bill of exceptions must show that there was evidence actually given to the jury conducing to prove that state of facts: 6 Cranch 226; 4 Cranch 62, 1 Stew. Port., 71; 5 Ibid. 330; 8 Johns. 495; 2 Pet. 1; 9 Wend. 296. When the bill does not purport to set out all the evidenc......
-
THE LYDIA
... ... admiralty jurisdiction is that conversion is a tort, and a tort so elementary in its nature that it may be maintained even against an infant (Vasse v. Smith, 6 Cranch, 226, 3 L. Ed. 207), and if that tort is committed on navigable waters, admiralty has jurisdiction ... ...
-
Conway v. Reed
...the effect of an unavoidable accident. 3 Wend. 391, Bullock v. Babcock; Sikes v. Johnson, 16 Mass. 389; Morgan v. Cox, 22 Mo. 373; Vasse v. Smith, 6 Cranch 226; Campbell v. Stakes, 2 Wend. 137. 2. If the injury resulted from inevitable accident, no negligence or wrongful intent could be imp......
-
Rice v. Boyer
... ... means of false representations. Howlett v ... Haswell, 4 Camp. 118; Green v ... Greenbank, 2 Marsh. 485; Vasse v ... Smith, 6 Cranch 226 (1 Am. Lead. Cases, 237, 3 L.Ed ... 207); Studwell v. Shapter, 54 N.Y. 249 ... It is ... also ... ...
Request a trial to view additional results