Conframp v. Bunel

4 U.S. 419, 6 F. Cas. 275, 1 L. Ed. 891, 4 Dall. 419, 1806 U.S. LEXIS 372
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided April 1, 1806·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

4 U.S. 419 (____)
4 Dall. 419

Conframp et al.
versus
Bunel.

Supreme Court of United States.

*420 Moylan, for the plaintiffs.

Du Ponceau, and Dallas, for the defendant.

The COURT were clearly of opinion, that the parties were bound by the law of the 6th of September 1802; that the present case was within the law; and that the suspension of the law, applied as well to the commencement of the suit, as to the issuing of an execution.

The rule made absolute.[(1)]

NOTES

[(1)] The defendant's counsel, proceeding on the grounds above stated, did not make, on this preliminary question, the objection, that the Circuit Court has no jurisdiction of a cause, in which both parties are aliens; an objection that has, repeatedly, been adjudged to be fatal.

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

Conframp v. Bunel, 4 U.S. 419, 6 F. Cas. 275, 1 L. Ed. 891, 4 Dall. 419, 1806 U.S. LEXIS 372 (1806).

4 U.S. 419 (Conframp v. Bunel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Com. v. Thompson, D.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2019
Arundel Corp. v. Griffin
103 So. 422 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1925)
Andrews v. Herriot
4 Cow. 508 (New York Supreme Court, 1825)
Bryant v. Ela
1 Smith & H. 396 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1815)