Rodbird v. Rodbird

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

Rodbird v. Rodbird

20 F. Cas. 1083, 5 D.C. 125, 5 Cranch 125

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1837

StatusPublished

This text of 20 F. Cas. 1083 (Rodbird v. Rodbird) 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

Rodbird v. Rodbird, 20 F. Cas. 1083, 5 D.C. 125, 5 Cranch 125 (circtddc 1837).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court

(Thruston, J., contra.) instructed the jury, that if, from the said evidence, they should be of opinion, that at the time of the said sale in 1829, there was personal property on the said lots, or either of them, of sufficient value to pay the said taxes, then the said sale of the said lots was null and void.

See the Act of Congress of the 15th of May, 1820, § 10, [3 Stat. at Large, 583,] “ to incorporate the inhabitants of the city of Washington; ” and the by-law of the Corporation of Washington, of October 13, 1823; Rothwell’s City Laws, 161.

[127]*127Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

The defendant took bills of exception, and sued out a writ of error, but did not prosecute it; and it was dismissed by the Supreme Court at January term, 1838.

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

The Court

(Thruston, J., contra.) instructed the jury, that if, from the said evidence, they should be of opinion, that at the time of the said sale in 1829, there was personal property on the said lots, or either of them, of sufficient value to pay the said taxes, then the said sale of the said lots was null and void.

See the Act of Congress of the 15th of May, 1820, § 10, [3 Stat. at Large, 583,] “ to incorporate the inhabitants of the city of Washington; ” and the by-law of the Corporation of Washington, of October 13, 1823; Rothwell’s City Laws, 161.

[127]*127Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

The defendant took bills of exception, and sued out a writ of error, but did not prosecute it; and it was dismissed by the Supreme Court at January term, 1838.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 F. Cas. 1083, 5 D.C. 125, 5 Cranch 125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodbird-v-rodbird-circtddc-1837.