Williamson v. Kincaid
4 U.S. 20, 1 L. Ed. 723, 4 Dall. 20, 1800 U.S. LEXIS 300
Opinion
Williamson, Plaintiff in Error,
versus
Kincaid.
Supreme Court of United States.
*21 Ingersoll and Dallas, for the plaintiff in error.
E. Tilghman, for the defendant in error.
By the COURT:
Be it so. Let the value of the matter in dispute be ascertained by affidavits, to be taken on ten days notice to the demandant, or her counsel in Georgia. But, consequently, the writ of error is not to be a supersedeas.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Williamson v. Kincaid, 4 U.S. 20, 1 L. Ed. 723, 4 Dall. 20, 1800 U.S. LEXIS 300 (1800).
4 U.S. 20 (Williamson v. Kincaid) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Joe C. Davis, Estate of Rascoe B. Davis, Third National Bank, and Delta C. Davis, Cross v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, (81-1127), Cross (81-1187). Joe C. Davis, Cross v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, (81-1126), Cross (81-1187)
746 F.2d 357 (Third Circuit, 1984)
Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc.
306 U.S. 583 (Supreme Court, 1939)
McLaughlin v. Darlington
50 P. 507 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1897)
Austin Real Estate & Abstract Co. v. Bahn
29 S.W. 641 (Texas Supreme Court, 1895)
Davie v. Heyward
33 F. 93 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina, 1887)
Elgin v. Marshall
106 U.S. 578 (Supreme Court, 1883)
Lennig v. Ralston
23 Pa. 137 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1854)