« ZurückWeiter »
own justification, he will wish to make public. The ave. nues to corruption are thus obstructed, and the sources of litigation closed.
One of the effects, expected from the establishment of a national judiciary, was the uniformity of judicial decision; an attempt, therefore, to report the cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, can not need an apology; and perhaps none can be given for the inadequate manner in which that attempt has been executed. It has been the endeavor of the Reporter to give a faithful summary of the arguments of counsel. To do them complete justice he acknowledges himself incompetent. In no instance, perhaps, has he given the words in which the ideas were conveyed, as his attention was almost entirely occupied in collecting the point of the argument. He may have omitted ideas deemed important, and added others supposed to be impertinent; but in no case has he intention, ally diminished the weight of the argument. It may pos, sibly be alleged that he has introduced into the reports of some of the cases more of the record than was necesa sary. If he has erred in this, he has been led into the crror by observing that many of the cases in the books are rendered useless by the want of a sufficient statement of the case as it appeared upon the record, and he imagined it would be a less fault to insert too much, than to omit any thing material.
He has been relieved from much anxiety, as well as responsibility, by the practice which the court has adopt
ed of reducing their opinion to writing, in all cases of difficulty or importance; and he tenders his tribute of acknowledgement for the readiness with which he was permitted to take copies of those opinions.
He is indebted to Mr. Caldwell, for his notes of the cases which were decided prior to February term 1803, without the assistance of which he would have been unable to report them, as his own notes of those cases, not having been taken with that view, were very imperfect.
He also feels his obligation to those gentlemen of the bar, whose politeness has prompted a ready communication of their notes, which have enabled him more correctly to report their arguments.
Should an apology be deemed necessary for the liber. tv he has taken in his notes to some of the cases reported, that apology exifts in a wish candidly to investigate the truth. In doing this in a respectful manner, he does not feel conscious of giving cause of offence to liberal and candid minds.
If the fate of the present volume should not prove him totally inadequate to the task he has undertaken, it is his intention to report the cases of succeeding terms.
ABERCROMBIE v. Dupuis,
page page 343 Madison, Marbury v. Alexander, Lloyd v.
137 365 Mandeville v. Riddle, 290 Auld, Hepburn v.
321 Marbury v. Madison, 137 B Mason, Wilson v.
45 Bazadone, Clarke si
239 Clark t. Young,
P Clarke v. Bazadone,
Peggy Schooner, U. States v. 103 212
IIO Dexter, Hodgson v. 345 Riddle, Mandeville v.
290 Dunlop v. Silver,
367 Russell, Hamilton v. 309 Dupuis, Abercrombie v.
259 Fendall, Turner v. 117 Seeman, Talbot v.
I Fenwick v. Sears, 259 Shehee, Refler v.
110 G Silver, Dunlop v.
Simms, U. States v.. 252 Gardner, Lindo v. 343 Stuart v. Laird,
299 Groverman, Hooe v. 215
I Hamilton v. Russell, 309 Thompson v. Jameson
282 Hepburn v. Auld, 321 | Turner v. Fendall
117 Hodgson v. Dexter,
-v. Schooner Peggy, 103 I
252 Jameson, Thompson v. 282
W Insurance Company Alexan- Wilson v. Lenox,
194 dria v. Young,
239 Laird, Stuart v.
299 Lenox, Wiison v.
Young, Clark v.
181 194 Lindo e. Gardner,
Insurance Co. Alex
343 !! yd 74. Alexander,
andria v. 305
Barloe, Jordan v.
Barry, Brown ve 207, 266, 270 V. Harraden,
page. Brown v. London, 388, 429, 463 Clarke v. Martin,
294, 408, 431 v. Tindall,
273, 278 Browning v. Morris, 442 | Claxton v. Swift,
271 Buckingham v. Coftendine,
335 Coggs, Horton v.
391, 402, 406 Bullen, Brown v. 442 Collins v. Emmit,
442 Buller v. Crips, 372, 381, 382, 411 | Comyns, Morrough v. 424 432 Consella v. Briscoe,
71 v. Harrison, 442 Cooper, Monk v.
358 Bulltrode v, Gilburn,
335 Core v. Woddye, 428, 429, 440, 463 Bunniworth v. Gibbs, 448 Corvens'case,
353 Burrage, King v.
72 Coftendine, Buckingham v. 335 Burrough of Midhurst, Rex v. 152 Cox, M Quillin v.
208 Burton v. Souter, 410 Coxe v. Wirrall,
114 Butcher v. Swift, 404 Cramlington v. Evans,
391, 429 Byas, ex parte,
246 Crawly 7. Crowther, 294, 404 с Creagh, Welsh v.
Crips, Buller v. 372, 381, 382, 411 Cabot, Bingham v..
432 Cadogan v. Kennet, 312 Cromwell v. Floyd,
399 Caldwell v. Ball, 439 Crop v. Norton,
328 Call, Scott v. 202, 210 Crow, Dougherty v.
71 Campbell, Hitchen v. 440, 442, 184 Crowther, Crawly v. 294, 404 188
Cutler, Marth v.
288 Kitchen v. 184, 188, 440 Cutting v. Williams,
410 442 Wright v. 439
D Cannon v. Smallwood,
I28 Cardy, Hawkins v. 372, 400 Darrach v. Savage,
391 Carter v. Downish,
370 Dartnall v.
335 Hibberts v.
439 Dauchy, Wiscart v. v. Palmer, 402, 404, 431 Davis, Mackie v. 184, 186, 273 v. Pearce,
449, 458 Carthage v. Manby;
430 Çary v. Webster, 442 Davy, Newdigate v.
442 Castles' case, 254 Dawes v. Ferres,
87 Chamberlyn v. Delarive, 184, 186 Dedire, Freemoult v. 188
Dehers v. Harriot,
392 Chapman, Bell v.
429 Delarive, Chamberlyn v. 184, 186 v. Emery,
70 188 Chat, Edgar v. 386 Denabic, Difbornc v.
429 Cheeseman, Starke v. 402 Dimocke, Hornsey v.
429, 442 Chichester, Vass v. 210, 338 Dingwall v. Dunftar,
200 Child, Walmsley v. 417 Dilborne v. Denabie,
429 Chute, Meredith v. 463 Dittlesfield, Oble v.
429 Clark v. Nightengale, 305 Doe v. Routledge,
70 Clarke v. Adair, 427 Dolly, Goodall v.
272 v. Reynolds,
313 Domingo Franca's cafe, 463 v. Shee and Johnson, 442 Dougherty v. Crow,
71 v. Smith, 443 | Douglas, Ifrael vo