Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up free
Phenix Gazette
Alexandria, Virginia
What is this article about?
U.S. Supreme Court session on January 23, 1829: Michael Hoffman admitted as attorney on motion of C. Wickliffe; R. Wickliffe moved for rule to dismiss writ in Samuel Meredith's Lessee v. William Bradford and E. Daniel for lack of jurisdiction, rule granted; arguments resumed in John Reynolds v. Duncan McArthur by Mr. Scott and Mr. Vinton.
Clipping
OCR Quality
Full Text
FRIDAY, Jan'y 23.
Proclamation being made, the Court is opened.
On motion of Hon. C. Wickliffe, Michael Hoffman, Esq. of the State of New York, was admitted as an Attorney and Counsellor of this Court.
No. 114. Samuel Meredith's Lessee, Plaintiff in Error, vs. William Bradford and E. Daniel. R. Wickliffe, Esq. of Counsel for the Defendants in Error, moved the Court for a rule on the Plaintiff in Error, commanding him to appear before this Court on the 28th February, 1829, of the present Term of this Court, to shew cause why this writ of error, to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Kentucky District, should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Rule granted.
No. 71. John Reynolds, Pff. (U S.) Plaintiff in Error, vs. Duncan McArthur. The argument of this cause was resumed by Mr. Scott, for the Plaintiff in Error, and continued by Mr. Vinton, for the Defendant in Error.
What sub-type of article is it?
What keywords are associated?
What entities or persons were involved?
Where did it happen?
Domestic News Details
Primary Location
U. S. Supreme Court
Event Date
1829 01 23
Key Persons
Outcome
michael hoffman admitted as attorney and counsellor; rule granted to show cause for dismissal in no. 114; arguments resumed in no. 71.
Event Details
Court opened after proclamation. Motion by Hon. C. Wickliffe admitted Michael Hoffman of New York. In No. 114, R. Wickliffe moved for rule on plaintiff to appear February 28, 1829, to show cause why writ from Kentucky Circuit Court should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. In No. 71, argument resumed by Mr. Scott for plaintiff and continued by Mr. Vinton for defendant.