Alexandria v. Corse

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

Alexandria v. Corse

1 F. Cas. 393, 2 Cranch 363, 2 D.C. 363

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

DecidedNovember 15, 1822

StatusPublished

This text of 1 F. Cas. 393 (Alexandria v. Corse) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alexandria v. Corse, 1 F. Cas. 393, 2 Cranch 363, 2 D.C. 363 (circtddc 1822).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT, (THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent,)

at the prayer of the defendant’s counsel, instructed the jury, that the defendant was only liable for the faithful discharge of Talbot’s duty as inspector, and was not liable for his honest error in judgment, or want of skill.

But the court, at the prayer of the plaintiff’s counsel, further instructed the jury; that if the inspector was guilty of gross negligence in examining the fish, he did not faithfully execute the duties of his office in that respect.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE COURT, (THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent,)

at the prayer of the defendant’s counsel, instructed the jury, that the defendant was only liable for the faithful discharge of Talbot’s duty as inspector, and was not liable for his honest error in judgment, or want of skill.

But the court, at the prayer of the plaintiff’s counsel, further instructed the jury; that if the inspector was guilty of gross negligence in examining the fish, he did not faithfully execute the duties of his office in that respect.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 F. Cas. 393, 2 Cranch 363, 2 D.C. 363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexandria-v-corse-circtddc-1822.