Grigsby v. Love

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

Grigsby v. Love

11 F. Cas. 48, 2 D.C. 413, 2 Cranch 413

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

DecidedMay 15, 1823

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 11 F. Cas. 48 (Grigsby v. Love) 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

Grigsby v. Love, 11 F. Cas. 48, 2 D.C. 413, 2 Cranch 413 (circtddc 1823).

Pincite

Opinion

The CouRT

continued the case for advisement, and to obtain information as to the practice of the courts in Virginia upon this statute.

■ At May term, 1822, the case was mentioned again, and the case of Wright v. Hancock, 3 Mun. 526, was cited. And now at May term, 1823, Mr. Taylor stated to the Court that he was informed .by the chancellor in Virginia that the rule pari passu does not apply to attachments of this kind ; and on the 22d of May, 1823, this Court, so decided.

(Thruston, J., absent.)

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

The CouRT

continued the case for advisement, and to obtain information as to the practice of the courts in Virginia upon this statute.

■ At May term, 1822, the case was mentioned again, and the case of Wright v. Hancock, 3 Mun. 526, was cited. And now at May term, 1823, Mr. Taylor stated to the Court that he was informed .by the chancellor in Virginia that the rule pari passu does not apply to attachments of this kind ; and on the 22d of May, 1823, this Court, so decided.

(Thruston, J., absent.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 F. Cas. 48, 2 D.C. 413, 2 Cranch 413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grigsby-v-love-circtddc-1823.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack