« PreviousContinue »
process or execution. 3 Dallas, pressed in a deed, without saying, 478.
* and also for other considerations," Congress have not power to give proof of any other consideration original jurisdiction to the supreme than the one expressed, is not adcourt of the United States, in other missible. Maigley v. Hauer. cases than those described in the Johns. Rep. 341. constitution. Marbury v. Madison. 4 If the consideration in a deed is 1 Cranch, 176.
not truly stated, the party must seek g An act of Congress repugnant to
his relief in a court of chancery. the constitution cannot become a Ibid. law. Ib. 10 A cause may, by act of Congress be transferred from one infe- CONSIGNOR AND CONSIGNEE.. riour tribunal to another. Stuart v. Laird. 1 Cranch, 299.
1 Goods were shipped on board of a 11 Congress may constitutionally im- vessel, and consigned to the master, pose upon the judges of the supreme to be sold at Bordeaux.
The mascourt of the United States, the bur- ter not being able to find a purchaden of holding circuit courts. Ib. ser, left the goods at Bordeaux, and
returned to Newyork. It was held,
that having acted bona fide, he was CONNECTICUT CLAIMANTS. not liable to the owner for the val
ue of the goods. Lawler v. Kea1 Charge of the court, in relation to quick. 1 Johns. Cas. 174.
the title of the Connecticut Claim- 2 Where a master of a vessel, signants, to lands in Pennsylvania. 2 ed a bill of lading to deliver four Dallas, 304.
cases of goods to N. T. at Norfolk, 2 The powers of a judicial nature who was a transcient person, and
vested in, and exercised by, the le- not resident at Norfolk, and the gislature of Connecticut. 8 Dallas, master on arriving at Norfolk, in886 to 401.
quired for N. T. and not finding 3
The controversy between New- him delivered the goods to meryork and Connecticut relative to chants there for N. 1., it was held, the Connecticut gore, occuring in a that the master, having, aeted bona suit between two individuals, is no fide, and according to the usage of ground for removing it by certiora- trade, was not liable to the consignri into the supreme court. 3 Dallas, or on the bill of lading. Mayell v. 411 to 415.
Potter. 2 Johns. Cas. 371. 3 Where a vessel, on her arrival in
the port of Newyork, is ordered to CONSIDERATION.
perform quarantine, and the cargo is
landed and stored at the quarantine 1 A conveyance of an estate tail ground, the shipper or consignee of
made in pursuance of the statute of the goods is bound to pay the exMareh 8, 1792, may be for a good pence of landing and storage. Rice as well as for a valuable considera- v. Clendining and Adans. 3 Johns. tion. 2 Mass. 447.
Cas. 483. 2 A damage to the promissee is a 4 If goods be shipped for the account
sufficient consideration to support a and risk of the consignee, he paying promise, as well as a benefit to the the freight, and it be so expressed promissor. Foster v. Fuller. 6 in the bill of lading and invoice, a Mass. 58.
delivery to the carrier is considered 13 Where there is a consideration ex- as a delivery to the consignee, who
alone can bring an action against
1 The laws made against conspira
tors and absentees before the adop1 In conspiracy the fact of conspir- tion of the constitution of the Com
ing need not be proved, but may be monwealth, are not repealed by the collected from other circumstances. declaration of rights. M'Neil v.
King v. Parsons. 1 Black. 392. Bughi et al. 4 Mass. 282. 2 One conspirator may be convicted 2 A writ of possession was not ne
after the other is dead. A verdict cessary to complete a judgment in cannot be removed from the ses. favour of the State under the laws sions before judgment.
against absentees. Ib. y. Elizabeth Niccolis. 2 Strange, 3 If a judgment of confession urder 1227.
the absentee laws was rendered af3 Conspiraey, though nothing be ter the treaty had provided that no
done in pursuance of it, is an offence, further confiscations should take and that whether it is to be charg- place, such judgment is valid, unless ed with an offence temporal or ec- reversed by writ of error. Ib. clesiastical. Confederacies one of the articles of Oyer and Terminer. The Queen v. Best f. Another. 1
CONSTABLE. Salk. 174. 2 L. Raym. 1167.
Conspiracy may be laid without I. Election of, and who liable to any overt acts; and if one be con
serve or not. victed, judgment shall be given a- II. How punishable for neglect, g'c. gainst him before the trial of the III. Other points relative to. other. The King v. Kinnersley and Moore. 1 Str. 193.
I. Election of, and who liable to serve 5 It is conspiracy in husband, wife,
or not. and servants giving money separately to plaintiff's servants to spoil 1 Sessions of the peace may appoint the materials of his trade. The a constable. If a warrant be direct. King v. Cope and another. 1 Str.
ed to a constable by name, he may 141.
execute it out of his precinct. Case 6 Where three persons were indict- of the Village of Charley. 1 Salk.
ed for a conspiracy, and one of 175. thern died before trial, and another ? Constable chosen at the leet bound was acquitted; it was held, that to serve under a penalty ; but that the third might be tried and con- cannot be distrained for without er. victed. The People v. Olcott. 2
Fletcher v. Ingrata Johns. Cas. 391.
i Salk. 175. 1 L. Raym. 69. A. and B. being indicted for a con- 3 The sessions can only appoint conspiracy to defraud C. the jury found stables until the lord shall hold a a rerdict that there was an agree- court, and not for a year, or till ment between A. and B. to obtain others be chosen. The King V money from C. but with an intent Davis and Gosling. 2 Slr. 1050. to return it again. This was held 4 A corporation has no power of vot to a verdiet of acquittal, or a common right to elect a constable
but it may by custom. An indict- county of D. Blatcher v. Kemp,ciment for not serving the office of a ted. 1 H. Black. 15, n. constable on the election of the cor- 2 Qu. Whether goods distrained in poration must set forth the copora- the parish of A., can be appraised tion's right to elect. The King v. by appraisers, sworn before the Bernard. 1 L. Raym. 94.
constable of the parish of B.; each 5 Constable may be sworn in before parish being in the same hundred,
a justice of the peace. The K'ing but in different divisions ; and each'
v. Dr. Franchard. 2 Str. 11.19. having different coustables. 1 H. 6 Holden that the resiants of a leet
Black, 13. are not excused from serving as 3
A constable cannot serve an oriconstables to the hundred. Anon. ginal writ in a real action. Hari Lofft, 418.
v. Huckins. 5 Mass. 260. 7 A statutable certificate of exemp- 4 In an action of trespass, for tak
tion from all ward offices does not ing the plaintiff's goods, the deexempt a person from serving the fendant justified as a constable, unoffice of constable of a manor, which der an appointment of three justices, extends beyond the limits of a par- pursuant to the 6th section of the ish. Rex v. Darbyshire. 2 Burr. act (sess. 24, C, 78,) relative to mond, 1182.
duties and privileges of towns," of 8 Naturalized foreigner not eligible 27th March, 1801, and that he took
into the office of constable. Rex v. the goods as constable, by virtue of De Mierre. 5 Burr. 2787.
an execution issued against the 9 An alderman of London is not goods of the plaintiff. &c.
compellable to serve the office of held, that the appointinent made by constable. The King v. Routledge. the justices was a judicial act; and 2 Doug. 538.
being within their jurisdiction, was
conclusive and valid, until set aside II. How punishable for neglect, fc. or quashed on certiorari; and could
not be questioned in a collateral ac1 Constable indictable for neglect. tion. Wood v. Peake. 8 Johns.
ing duty required by common law Rep. 69.
CONSTITUTIONS. 2 L. Raym. 1189. 2 Constable within Habeas Corpus 1 The prohibition in the 10th sec
Act. Hudson of Wife v. Ash. 1 tion of the first article of the conStr. 167.
stitution of the United States, does 3 Constable of the night is guilty of not extend to the municipal regula
an indictable misdemeanor, in suf- tions of the present States, which fering a street-walker, delivered to modify the process and proceedings his custody by oue of the nightly relative to the recovery of debts, as watch, to escape. Rex v. Bootie. establishing gaol liberties, &c. 2 Burr. 864.
Holmes and another v. Lansing. 3
Johns. Cas. 73.
of naturalization is
concurrent and not exclusive. 2 1 A constable cannot act as such Dallas, 291.
out of his particular district; even 3 The grant of original jurisdiction though a warrant is directed to 1., to the supreme court in certain caconstable of B.; to C. and to all ses, does not prevent the legislature other officers of the peace, in the from vesting a concurrent jurisdic
tion in the inferior courts. 2 Dal 15 A citizen of the district of Colum las, 297.
bia is not a citizen of a State, with The effect of the provision, that in the meaning of the constitution full faith and credit shall be given
of the United States. Hepburn in each State to the public acts, al. v. Ellzey. 2 Cranch, 445, &c. of every other State, in relation
to a judgment. 2 Dallas, 302, 3. 5 Analysis of the nature and obliga
CONSTRUCTION. tion of a constitution of government. 2 Dallas, 307, 8, 9.
These words 6 between A. and B." in 6 If a legislative act oppugns a con- a deed are necessarily exclusive of
stitutional principle, the former A. and B. 1 Mass. 91.
CONTEMPT OF COURT. 7 The quieting act (in relation to
the Wyoming controversy) was a 1 It is contempt to serve process or violation of the constitution of Penn- a defendant while attending the sit
sylvania. 2 Dallas, 307 to 316. tings in court. Dole v. Hawkins. 8 Animadversions on the terms “er- 2 Str. 1094.
post facto laws," and " laws impair- 2 Defeating a rule of court by a ing the obligation of contracts. 2 stranger is a contempt. Sir James Dallas, 319, 320.
Butler's Case. 2 Salk. 596. 9 The definition of high treason, by 3 Refusing to give evidence to the
levying war against the United Grand Jury, is a contempt finable.
States. 2 Dallas, 346, 318 to 356. The King v. Lord Preston. 1 Salk. 10 The act of the 18th March, 1789, 278.
prescribing a test to be taken by 4 Challenging the array of a Special aliens, before they could be natural- Jury on account of interest in the ized under the old constitution, is sheriff, no contempt. The King y. inconsistent with the existing con
Johnson and another. 2 Str. 1000. stitution of Pennsylvania, and void. 5 If a party enters into a rule, that 2 Dallas, 370 to 373.
the Master shall name 48 for a Spe11 The federal constitution renders a eial Jury, each party strike out 12,
State liable to be sued, as a defend- and the sheriff return the other 24, ant, by an individual citizen of a- and the jury are struek and returnnother State. 2 Dallas, 419.
ed accordingly ; it is a contempt in 12 The supreme court of the United him to challenge the array, though
States, has not power to issue a he may the polls. And an attachmandamus to a Secretary of State of ment shall be granted against him the United States, it being an ex
for it. The King v. Burridge. ? ercise of original jurisdiction not L. Raym. 1364. 2 Salk. 593. warranted by the constitution, not- 6. Where there are faults on both withstanding the act of Congress. sides, and the officer executing proMarbury v. Madison. 1 Cranch, cess has behaved unjustifiably as 137.
well as the parties who resisted him, 13 The courts of the United States the court generally will not grant are bound to take notice of the con- extraordinary process of contempt
. stitution. 1 Cranch, 178.
Gregory v. Onslow. Lofft, 33. 14 A contemporary exposition of the ✓ Release by plaintiff is a contempt,
constitution, practiced and acquiesc- he being merely a nominal party. ed under for a period of years, fixes Anon. 1 Salk. 260. its construction. Stuart r. Laird, 8 The writ and suit of an infant i 1 Cranch, 299.
subject only to the direction of the
prochein any, and not of the infant; 14 Where a person brought a suit in and sheriff' fined and committed for the name of another, without his delivering infant's writ of appeal privity or consent, it was held to be to himself, it being a contempt. To- a contempt of the court; and the 1 Salk. 176. 1 L. Ray
nominal plaintiff being non-suited, inond, 555.
an attachiment was granted against 9 It is a great contempt to circulate the person who brought the suit, for
papers relative to the merits oi'a the costs. Butterworth v. Stagg. 2 cause upon the eve of its trial, but Jolins. Cas. 291. not a sufficient ground to set aside 10 On a motion for an attachment for a verdiet, (though for the crown up- a contempt, the court will pot make on a criminal prosecution) unless the rule absolute, if the party, on the circulation can be fixed upon showing cause, disavow on oath, athe prosecutor. It is a contempt ny intentional disrespect or in the jury to take any evidence tempt of the court.
The People v. with them upon retiring from the Fere and others. 2 Johns. Rep. 290. bar, without either the leave of the 16 Where A. B. who was a master in court or consent of the parties ; but chancery, was committed by the their verdict upon that account chancellor, and the order of comshall not be set aside unless the ev- mitment stated that A. B. while he idence made for that party only for was master, filed a bill to which he whom they found. If the owner of subscribed the name of C. D. one the soil of a market covers the of the solicitors of the court, withmarket place so completely with out his knowledge or consent, and stalls, that the market people are prosecuted the cause, in his name, obliged to use them, taking stallage contrary to the statute in such is extortion; otherwise, where suf- case made and provided, in willful ficient standing room is left. Where violation of his duty as master, and custom has ascertained the toll of a in contempt of the authority of the mill, taking more than the custom court," and the said A. B. was orwarrants is extortion. The actual dered to be committed to gaol, “ for taking, not the agreement to take, the said malpractice and contempt, constitutes usury. Rex v. Burdett. there to remain until the further or1 L. Raym. 148 2 Salk. 645.
der of court; it was held that this 10 The court held the party in con- was a legal and valid coinmitment
tempt for filing a bill in chancery for a contempt, even if the party to set aside an'award, after entering might have been indicted for an ofinto rule of court of King's Bench fence against the statute, concernto abide by it, discharged without ing counsellors, solicitors and attorany fine, rather than set neys. In the case of J. V.N. Yates. small one for so high an offence.
4 Johns. Rep. 317. The King v. Wheeler. 3 Burrows, 17 But was this an indictable offence 1256. 1 Black. 311.
under the statute ? Quere. Ih. 11 The King's Bench never interpos- 18 This court has no power to dis
es in a contempt to the inferior ju- charge a person comunitted by the risdiction of justices. The King v.
eourt of chancery for a contempt; Burchett i str. 567.
and it will presume that the pro12 Ejectment is a process of the court, ceedings of ihat court were legal ; and the court will punish contempt
and that the conviction for the condous words on delivery of it. The tempt was on sufficient and legal King v. Unitt. 1 Str. 567.
evidence. Ib. 13 A by-stander in the court fined 19 A commitment for a contempt,
and imprisoned for disturbing il. 6 66 until the further order of the Teri Rep. 530.
.court;" is good. Ib.