Postmaster General v. Cross

19 F. Cas. 1096, 4 Wash. C. C. 326
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania·Decided October 15, 1822·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice.

The matter in dispute, in this case, appears by the record, to be the penalty of the bond, the declaration containing no breach, showing that a smaller sum was claimed, as was the case of the United States v. M’Dowell [supra]. If the verdict had been for a smaller sum than $50, that would have been the matter in dispute, and this court could not have entertained the writ of error. The judgment must be reversed, and a venire de novo awarded, there being no breaches assigned in the dec[1097] laration or replication; and also because the verdict does not respond to the plea or payment, but states matteis irrelevant to that issue; but which, I presume, were subjects of discussion at the trial. If these be the grounds of defence, they must be presented to the court by proper pleadings.

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

Postmaster General v. Cross, 19 F. Cas. 1096, 4 Wash. C. C. 326 (circtdpa 1822).

19 F. Cas. 1096 (Postmaster General v. Cross) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cabot v. McMaster
61 F. 129 (N.D. Illinois, 1894)
Greene v. Klinger
10 F. 689 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1882)
Jones v. Van Zandt
46 U.S. 215 (Supreme Court, 1847)