Holmead v. Smith

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

Holmead v. Smith

5 D.C. 343

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1837

StatusPublished

This text of 5 D.C. 343 (Holmead v. Smith) 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

Holmead v. Smith, 5 D.C. 343 (circtddc 1837).

Pincite

Opinion

Cranch, C. J.,

said that this Court had entertained jurisdiction, by certiorari, in forcible entry and detainer in- several cases, and referred to the case of United States v. Donahoo, in this Court, at December term, 1807 (1 Cranch, C. C. 474) ; and the case of the Lord Proprietor v. Brown et al. 1 Har. & McHenry, 428.

The Court (Thruston, J., absent,) quashed the inquisition for uncertainty in the description of the property: “ Tenement or storehouse ” is too vague.

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

Cranch, C. J.,

said that this Court had entertained jurisdiction, by certiorari, in forcible entry and detainer in- several cases, and referred to the case of United States v. Donahoo, in this Court, at December term, 1807 (1 Cranch, C. C. 474) ; and the case of the Lord Proprietor v. Brown et al. 1 Har. & McHenry, 428.

The Court (Thruston, J., absent,) quashed the inquisition for uncertainty in the description of the property: “ Tenement or storehouse ” is too vague.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 D.C. 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holmead-v-smith-circtddc-1837.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack