Bartlet v. Prince
This text of 9 Mass. 431 (Bartlet v. Prince) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
* But the Court stopped them, saying they were all agreed that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment on the verdict. The Chief' Justice observed that he had always conceived that by insolvency, in the acts of Congress, was to be understood some overt and notorious act, which the laws of the state recognize as an insolvency,
Judgment on the verdict.
{a) [Prince vs. Bartlet, S. C. in Error, 8 Cranch, 431.— United States vs. Hooe, 3 Cranch, 91. — M'Lean vs. Rankin, 3 Johns. Rep. 370.— Watkins vs. Otis, 2 Pick. 88. — Canard vs. The Atlantic Ins. Co., 1 Peters's R. S. C. 438.— Thellusson vs. Smith, 3 Wheat. 396. — Farmers Mechanics Bank. vs. Smith, 6 Wheat. 131. — Ed.]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
9 Mass. 431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bartlet-v-prince-mass-1812.