Gorman v. Marsteller

10 F. Cas. 831, 2 D.C. 311, 2 Cranch 311
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia
DecidedMay 15, 1822
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 10 F. Cas. 831 (Gorman v. Marsteller) 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
Gorman v. Marsteller, 10 F. Cas. 831, 2 D.C. 311, 2 Cranch 311 (circtddc 1822).

Opinion

The Court

(Thruston, J., absent,)

at November term, 1821, instructed the jury, 1st! That the plaintiff must prove a trespass in the County of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia.

2d.

(Cránch, O. J., strongly doubting.)

That the injuries done on the Virginia side of the line might be given in evidence under the alia enormia ; and

3d. That an entry on the district part of the close, with intent to do the injury on the other part, was a trespass.

See Pope v. Davies, 2 Camp. 266; Bulwer’s case, 7 Co. 1; Doulson v. Matthews, 4 T. R. 503; Mostyn v. Fabrigas, Cowp. 164; Alves v. Hodgson, 7 T. R. 241.

Verdict for the plaintiff, $100.

A motion for a new trial, upon a suggestion of misdirection of the jury by the Court, as to the admission of evidence of injuries done in Virginia under alia enormia, (those injuries being of themselves- substantial causes of action in Virginia,)

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

Related

Colpoys v. Foreman
163 F.2d 908 (D.C. Circuit, 1947)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 F. Cas. 831, 2 D.C. 311, 2 Cranch 311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gorman-v-marsteller-circtddc-1822.