Search results
Under this judgment against D'Arcy, Ketchum, Rogers, and Bement brought a suit in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana, of the following description. The suit being by petition, the whole of it will be inserted.
In the United States v. Auredy, 11 Wheat. 407, this court held that no other or further formality is required than the annexation of the seal; the act of Congress requires no other authentication. That was the case of a legislative proceeding.
Under this judgment against D'Arcy, Ketchum, Rogers, and Bement brought a suit in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana, of the following description. The suit being by petition, the whole of it will be inserted.
In D'Arcy v. Ketchum (1850) 52 U.S. 165, an action had been brought in that State by Morris Ketchum against George H. Gossip and James D'Arcy, joint debtors, on a judgment recovered in New York in 1846. D'Arcy had not been served with process in New York, and he was a resident of Louisiana.
52 U.S. 165. D'Arcy v. Ketchum. THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana. Mr. Justice McKinley did not sit on the trial of this cause in the Circuit Court. Notes edit.
- Description: U.S. Reports Volume 52; Howard Volume 11; December Term, 1850; James D'Arcy, Plaintiff in error, v. Morris Ketchum, Thomas Rogers, and Edward Benent, Copartners, trading under the Name and Firm of Ketchum, Rogers, and Benent
United States v. Philadelphia and New Orleans Citation: 52 U.S. 609 Court: US Supreme Court
