Hills v. Ross

3 U.S. 331, 1 L. Ed. 623, 3 Dall. 331, 1796 U.S. LEXIS 411
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided August 12, 1796·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

Bv the Court

: J.t appears, that the damages have been affeffed in the courts below, in relation to the value of the goods that were captured : but the Plaintiffs in error were not trefpaffers ab initio ; and, a£ting only as agents, they ihould be made anfwerable for no more than adlually came into their hands. ■ The accounts of fales are regularly colledted and annexed to the record. We are, therefore, at no lofs for a criterion : And we think that the decree ihould be fo modified, as to charge them with the amount of fales, after deducing the duties on the goods, if the duties were paid by them.

The Decree was in the following words:—Ordered, That the decree of the Circuit Court for Georgia diftriét, pronounced on the 5th of May, 1795, be reverfed, fo far as the fame refpedls the faid Hills, May- and JVoodbridge ; and it is further ordered, that the faid Hills, May and Woodbridge, pay to the faid Walter Rofs, thirty-two thoufand and ninety dollars and fifty-eight cents,-the net amount of the fales of the cargo of the laid fliip, and five thoufand fix hundred and five dollars and twelve cents, intereft thereon, from the 6th day of June 1794, to the twelfth day of Augujl 1796, making together the fum of thirtv-feven thoufand fix hundred and ninety-five dollars and feventy cents, and that the faid Hills, May and Woodbridge, do .pay the cofts of fuit—and a fpecial mandate, &c.

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

Hills v. Ross, 3 U.S. 331, 1 L. Ed. 623, 3 Dall. 331, 1796 U.S. LEXIS 411 (1796).

3 U.S. 331 (Hills v. Ross) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Untitled Case
E.D. California, 2026
MCKNIGHT v. United States
Federal Claims, 2025
(PC) Hill v. Allison
E.D. California, 2022
King v. National Oil Co.
81 Mo. App. 155 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1899)
Clarke v. Slate v. R. Co.
20 A. 562 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1890)
Harshey v. Blackmarr
20 Iowa 161 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1866)
Taylor v. Coryell
12 Serg. & Rawle 243 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1825)
Lagow v. Patterson
1 Blackf. 327 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1824)
Thomas Scott & Co. v. Dunlop, Pollok & Co.
2 Va. 349 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1811)