The President, Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States v. David Weisiger

27 U.S. 481, 7 L. Ed. 492, 2 Pet. 481, 1829 U.S. LEXIS 415
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 17, 1829
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 27 U.S. 481 (The President, Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States v. David Weisiger) 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
The President, Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States v. David Weisiger, 27 U.S. 481, 7 L. Ed. 492, 2 Pet. 481, 1829 U.S. LEXIS 415 (1829).

Opinion

27 U.S. 481

2 Pet. 481

7 L.Ed. 441

7 L.Ed. 492

THE PRESIDENT, DIRECTORS AND COMPANY OF THE BANK OF
THE UNITED STATES, APPELLANTS
v.
DAVID WEISIGER, APPELLEE.

January Term, 1829

In this case, which had been argued on a previous day of the term, and the opinion of the Court delivered in favour of the appellants, (See ante, page 331) Mr Bibb having informed the Court that the defendant, Weisiger, had died since the commencement of the term; stated that he had been of counsel with the respondent, but he considered that his authority had expired by his death. He objected to the entry of a decree.

Mr Sergeant, for the complainants, moved the Court to cause the decree to be entered of a day in the term before the respondent's death; and he cited Davis vs. Davis, 9 Ves. 461. Campbell vs. Mesier, 4 Johns. C. R. 342. Asburnham vs. Thompson, cited 2 Mad. C. P. 529, as fully establishing the practice according to his motion.

Mr Bibb, contra.

The Court ordered the decree to be entered as of the first day of the term.

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

Related

Opinion No.
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1990
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1990
Huzjak v. United States
118 F.R.D. 61 (N.D. Ohio, 1987)
Flowers ex rel. Flowers v. Hyatt Regency Hotel
1 N. Mar. I. Commw. 692 (Northern Mariana Islands Commonwealth Trial Court, 1983)
Bostrom v. Seguros Tepeyac, S.A.
225 F. Supp. 222 (N.D. Texas, 1963)
Leonard v. Abbott
366 S.W.2d 925 (Texas Supreme Court, 1963)
Roll v. Howell
73 So. 218 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1916)
United States v. Delaware & H. Co.
164 F. 215 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania, 1908)
In re Estate of Jarrett
42 Ohio St. (N.S.) 199 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1884)
Mitchell v. Overman
103 U.S. 62 (Supreme Court, 1881)
Smith v. Cunningham
2 Tenn. Ch. R. 565 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1875)
De Agreda v. Mantel
1 Abb. Pr. 130 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1854)
McCurdy v. Agnew
8 N.J. Eq. 728 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1850)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
27 U.S. 481, 7 L. Ed. 492, 2 Pet. 481, 1829 U.S. LEXIS 415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-president-directors-and-company-of-the-bank-of-the-united-states-v-scotus-1829.