Respublica v. Gordon

Supreme Court

Respublica v. Gordon

1 U.S. 233, 1 L. Ed. 115, 1 Dall. 233, 1788 U.S. LEXIS 488

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJanuary 1, 1788

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 1 U.S. 233 (Respublica v. Gordon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Respublica v. Gordon, 1 U.S. 233, 1 L. Ed. 115, 1 Dall. 233, 1788 U.S. LEXIS 488 (1788).

Pincite

Opinion

But now, the Chieb Justice delivered the opinion of the court, that anj proceedings against Mr. Gordon, the defendant, would contravene an express article in the treaty of peace and amity, entered into between the United States of America and Great Britain, for which reason, they could not sustain the suggestion filed by the attorney-general. And the defendant was accordingly discharged, (a)

(a)

The object that the defendant meant to accomplish by this proceeding, was to reverse the attainder; in consequence of which his title to the estate would revive, and as it had not beer appropriated or disposed of by the commonwealth, there would then be no obstacle to his taking immediate possession. The legislature soon afterwards passed an act in favor of Mr. Gordon’s pretensions See 1 Dall. 1; Ibid. 199; Ibid. 305, in note.

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

But now, the Chieb Justice delivered the opinion of the court, that anj proceedings against Mr. Gordon, the defendant, would contravene an express article in the treaty of peace and amity, entered into between the United States of America and Great Britain, for which reason, they could not sustain the suggestion filed by the attorney-general. And the defendant was accordingly discharged, (a)

(a)

The object that the defendant meant to accomplish by this proceeding, was to reverse the attainder; in consequence of which his title to the estate would revive, and as it had not beer appropriated or disposed of by the commonwealth, there would then be no obstacle to his taking immediate possession. The legislature soon afterwards passed an act in favor of Mr. Gordon’s pretensions See 1 Dall. 1; Ibid. 199; Ibid. 305, in note.

Oneida Indian Nation of New York, Cross v. State of New York, Counties of Broome, Chenango, Cortland, Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, Madison, Oswego, Oneida, Onondaga, St. Lawrence and Tioga, Individually and as Class Representatives, Cross-Appellants. Oneida Indian Nation of Wisconsin and Oneida of the Thames Band, Plaintiffs- Cross-Appellees v. State of New York, Counties of Broome, Chenango, Cortland, Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, Madison, Oneida, Onondaga, Oswego, St. Lawrence and Tioga, New York, and Valentine Ryan, New York Electric & Gas Corp., St. Regis Paper Co., and Georgia Pacific Corp., Individually and as Class Representatives, Cross-Appellants

691 F.2d 1070 (Second Circuit, 1982)

Wisconsin Bankers Ass'n v. Mutual Savings & Loan Ass'n

275 N.W.2d 130 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1978)

Nixon v. Administrator of General Services

433 U.S. 425 (Supreme Court, 1977)

United States v. Brown

381 U.S. 437 (Supreme Court, 1965)

Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Pratt

112 N.W. 395 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1907)

McCoul v. Lekamp's Administratrix

15 U.S. 111 (Supreme Court, 1817)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 U.S. 233, 1 L. Ed. 115, 1 Dall. 233, 1788 U.S. LEXIS 488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/respublica-v-gordon-scotus-1788.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack