Holmead v. Smith

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

Holmead v. Smith

12 F. Cas. 391, 5 Cranch 343

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia·Decided November 15, 1837·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

CRANCH, Chief Judge,

said that this court had entertained jurisdiction, by certiorari, in forcible entry and detainer in several cases, and referred to the case of U. S. v. Donahoo [Case No. 14,982], in this court, at December term, 1S07; and the case of the Lord Proprietary v. Brown, 1 Har. & McH. 428.

THE COURT (THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, 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, Chief Judge,

said that this court had entertained jurisdiction, by certiorari, in forcible entry and detainer in several cases, and referred to the case of U. S. v. Donahoo [Case No. 14,982], in this court, at December term, 1S07; and the case of the Lord Proprietary v. Brown, 1 Har. & McH. 428.

THE COURT (THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent) quashed the inquisition for uncertainty in the description of the property. “Tenement or storehouse” is too vague.

Holmead v. Smith, 12 F. Cas. 391, 5 Cranch 343 (circtddc 1837).

Pincite

12 F. Cas. 391 (Holmead v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related