Kurtz v. Jones

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

Kurtz v. Jones

14 F. Cas. 884, 2 D.C. 433, 2 Cranch 433

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1823

StatusPublished

This text of 14 F. Cas. 884 (Kurtz v. Jones) 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

Kurtz v. Jones, 14 F. Cas. 884, 2 D.C. 433, 2 Cranch 433 (circtddc 1823).

Pincite

Opinion

The CouRT

([nem. con.) permitted evidence now to be given that the plaintiff was a citizen of the District of Columbia ; and said that the point was decided by this Court in 1806, and as that decision has been acquiesced in and practised upon ever since; and as there is a superior tribunal who can correct the error, if it be one, this Court will not now overrule its former decision.

Judgment of condemnation.

A bill of exceptions was taken by the defendant’s counsel; but no writ of error was prosecuted.

The debt was $769.88.

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

The CouRT

([nem. con.) permitted evidence now to be given that the plaintiff was a citizen of the District of Columbia ; and said that the point was decided by this Court in 1806, and as that decision has been acquiesced in and practised upon ever since; and as there is a superior tribunal who can correct the error, if it be one, this Court will not now overrule its former decision.

Judgment of condemnation.

A bill of exceptions was taken by the defendant’s counsel; but no writ of error was prosecuted.

The debt was $769.88.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 F. Cas. 884, 2 D.C. 433, 2 Cranch 433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kurtz-v-jones-circtddc-1823.