Search results
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.
D'ARCY v. KETCHUM (1850) Decided: December 01, 1850. 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.
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 February, 1840, Ketchum, Rogers, and Bement brought an action in the Superior court of the City of New York against the drawers and acceptors of the bill, viz., Aurungzebe H. Gossip, Joseph Calder, George H. Gossip, and James D'Arcy. The suit was brought against them jointly, and the declaration contained the money counts, together with a ...
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
Jun 21, 2011 · Urtetiqui v. D'Arcy. IN error to the circuit court of the United States for the district of Maryland. The defendants in error instituted an action of assumpsit in the circuit court, and in the declaration, stated themselves to be citizens of Maryland, and that the defendant was a subject of the king of Spain.
