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

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia·Decided May 15, 1823·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.)

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

Pincite

11 F. Cas. 48 (Grigsby v. Love) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related