Farmers & Mechanics' Bank of Pennsylvania v. Smith

19 U.S. 131, 5 L. Ed. 224, 6 Wheat. 131, 1821 U.S. LEXIS 350
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedFebruary 12, 1821
StatusPublished
Cited by34 cases

This text of 19 U.S. 131 (Farmers & Mechanics' Bank of Pennsylvania v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Farmers & Mechanics' Bank of Pennsylvania v. Smith, 19 U.S. 131, 5 L. Ed. 224, 6 Wheat. 131, 1821 U.S. LEXIS 350 (1821).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Marshall

delivered the opi-ni°n of the Court, that this case was not distinguishable from its former decisions on the same subject, a except by the circumstances, that the defendant, in the present case, was a citizen of the same State with the plaintiffs, at the time the contract Was made in that State, and remained such at the time the suit was commenced in its Courts. But that these facts made no difference in the cases. The constitution of the United States was made for the whole people of the Union, and is equally binding upon all the Courts and all the citizens.

Judgment reversed.

Judgment. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record of the Supreme Court for the Eastern District of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, the Court is of opinion, that the said Supreme Court for the Eastern District of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, erred in giving judgment for the defendant, on the demurrer of the plaintiffs to the plea of the said defendant. It is, therefore, adjudged and ordered, that the judgment of the said Supreme Court for the Eastern District of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania be, and *135 the same is hereby reversed and annulled. And it is farther ordered, that the said cause be remanded . / . . to the .said Supreme Court for the Eastern District of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with directions to enter judgment for the plaintiffs in the said Court.

a

Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. Rep. 122. M‘MilIan M'Neill, id. 209.

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

Related

(PS) Van Den Heuvel v. Lawyer
E.D. California, 2024
Commonwealth v. Haynes
116 A.3d 640 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2015)
Com. v. Gilbert, T.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2015
Commonwealth v. Rose
81 A.3d 123 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2013)
Pryor v. Goza
159 So. 99 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1935)
Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell
290 U.S. 398 (Supreme Court, 1934)
Bovaird & Seyfang Manufacturing Co. v. Ferguson
64 A. 513 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1906)
In re Salmon & Salmon
143 F. 395 (W.D. Missouri, 1906)
Merrill v. Bowler
88 A. 114 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1897)
United States v. Patrick
73 F. 800 (Eighth Circuit, 1896)
Newton v. Hagerman
22 F. 525 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1884)
Hundley v. Chaney
4 P. 238 (California Supreme Court, 1884)
Sawyer v. Parish of Concordia
12 F. 754 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana, 1882)
Orr v. Lisso
33 La. Ann. 476 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1881)
Doughty v. Sheriff
27 La. 355 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1875)
Stevens v. Brown
49 Miss. 597 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1873)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 U.S. 131, 5 L. Ed. 224, 6 Wheat. 131, 1821 U.S. LEXIS 350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farmers-mechanics-bank-of-pennsylvania-v-smith-scotus-1821.