Fenwick v. Sears's Administrators

5 U.S. 259, 2 L. Ed. 101, 1 Cranch 259, 1803 U.S. LEXIS 359
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedFebruary 25, 1803
StatusPublished
Cited by31 cases

This text of 5 U.S. 259 (Fenwick v. Sears's Administrators) 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
Fenwick v. Sears's Administrators, 5 U.S. 259, 2 L. Ed. 101, 1 Cranch 259, 1803 U.S. LEXIS 359 (1803).

Opinion

5 U.S. 259 (____)
1 Cranch 259

FENWICK
v.
SEARS'S ADMINISTRATORS.

Supreme Court of United States.

*264 Mason, for the plaintiff in error.

Simms and C. Lee, for the defendants.

Simms, for the defendants in error.

*282 On the 25th of February, The Court gave the following judgment:

"It is decreed by the court that the defendants Stricker and Payson, not having obtained letters of administration in the district of Columbia, were not competent to maintain this action; and that the circuit court of the United States in and for the said district erred in overruling the demurrer. It is, therefore, considered by the court, that the judgment of the said circuit court, on the said demurrer, be, and the same is hereby reversed, and that judgment thereon be rendered for the defendant in the original action.[(a)]

NOTES

[(a)] The jurisdiction of the several states of Virginia and Maryland over the territory ceded by them to the United States, for the seat of government, ceased on the first Monday of December, 1800.

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

Related

Murray v. Crawford
689 F. Supp. 2d 1289 (D. Colorado, 2010)
Canfield v. Scripps
59 P.2d 1040 (California Court of Appeal, 1936)
Robinson v. First Nat. Bank
55 F.2d 209 (Fifth Circuit, 1932)
Barrielle v. Bettman
199 F. 838 (S.D. Ohio, 1912)
Moore v. Petty
135 F. 668 (Eighth Circuit, 1905)
Lusk's Adm'rs v. Kimball
87 F. 545 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Virginia, 1898)
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Brantley's Adm'r
28 S.W. 477 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1894)
Greer v. Ferguson
19 S.W. 966 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1892)
In re Stockman
38 N.W. 876 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1888)
Noonan v. Bradley
76 U.S. 394 (Supreme Court, 1870)
Lucas v. Tucker
17 Ind. 41 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1861)
Scobey v. Gibson
17 Ind. 572 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1861)
South-Western Railroad v. Paulk
24 Ga. 356 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1858)
Shaffer v. Bolander
4 Greene 201 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1854)
Davis v. Smith
5 Ga. 274 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1848)
Plummer v. . Brandon
40 N.C. 190 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1848)
Vaughan v. Northup
40 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1841)
Haight v. Executors of Bergh
15 N.J.L. 183 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1835)
Vaughn v. Barret
5 Vt. 333 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1833)
Union Bank of Georgetown v. Smith
24 F. Cas. 566 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia, 1830)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 U.S. 259, 2 L. Ed. 101, 1 Cranch 259, 1803 U.S. LEXIS 359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fenwick-v-searss-administrators-scotus-1803.