Wallen v. Williams

11 U.S. 278, 3 L. Ed. 342, 7 Cranch 278, 1812 U.S. LEXIS 397
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided March 13, 1812·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

11 U.S. 278 (1812)
7 Cranch 278

WALLEN
v.
WILLIAMS.

Supreme Court of United States.

March 13, 1812.

Present ... . All the Judges.

JONES, for the Plaintiff in error.

P.B. KEY, contra.

*279 TODD, J.

The attachment to compel a performance of the decree was unavailing; and upon the return of it, the habere facias was issued in conformity with the practice in that state, as admitted by the counsel on both sides in the Court below. It was ordered as a matter of course, and no objection was made. If this motion should prevail, it will make the writ of error operate as a supersedeas, contrary to the intention of the act of Congress.

Motion overruled.

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

Wallen v. Williams, 11 U.S. 278, 3 L. Ed. 342, 7 Cranch 278, 1812 U.S. LEXIS 397 (1812).

11 U.S. 278 (Wallen v. Williams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Morrison v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.
166 P. 1122 (Washington Supreme Court, 1917)
New England R. v. Hyde
101 F. 397 (First Circuit, 1900)
Union Mut. Life Ins. v. Windett
36 F. 838 (U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois, 1888)
Ferguson v. Dent
29 F. 1 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1886)
C., R. I. & P. R. v. Grinnell
53 Iowa 55 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1881)
Telegraph Co. v. Eyser
86 U.S. 419 (Supreme Court, 1873)
Thompson v. Van Vechten
5 Duer 618 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1855)
Adams v. Law Ex Rel. Robinson
57 U.S. 144 (Supreme Court, 1854)
United States ex rel. Stokes v. Kendall
5 D.C. 163 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia, 1837)