Volume 22 — United States Reports

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the power to regulate interstate commerce, which is granted to the U.S. Congress by the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, encompasses the power to regulate navigation. The decision is credited with supporting the economic growth of the antebellum United States and the creation of national markets. Gibbons v. Ogden has since provided the basis for Congress' regulation of railroads, freeways and television and radio broadcasts. The exiled Irish patriot Thomas Addis Emmet, as well as Thomas J. Oakley, argued for Ogden, and U.S. Attorney General William Wirt and Daniel Webster argued for Gibbons.

Held: or claimed, a third class of interests, as proprietaries, which clashed with that eminent domain, which was now about to be assumed by the State of Pennsylvania. The latter, the State determined to confiscate, and compensate them for; the former two, to preserve to them unviolated.

Held: that the conditions, annexed to the estate devised to the oldest male heir of J. T. M., were subsequent and not precedent, and that, consequently, the contingency on which the devise was to take effect, was not too remote, the estate vesting on the death of J. T. M.; to be devested, on the non-performance of the condition. Queere, Whether J. T. M. took an estate tail ?

Held: that they could cot claim title by inheritance, through' B., their father, he being an alien, and still living. ERROR to the Circuit Court of Maryland. The case agreed, stated, that William M‘Creery was seised and possessed of a tract of land in Baltimore county, in the State of Maryland, called Clover Hill, and died possessed thereof about the 1st of March, 1814.

The Emily and the Caroline, 22 U.S. 381 (1824), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that in admiralty law, indictments require less formality and technical precision than common law indictments. Additionally, the Supreme Court expressed an anti-circumvention principle for statutory interpretation, in which laws should be read in ways that do not undermine their purpose.

Held: that the registry did not, under the circumstances. vest the thle against the elder deed, ÉRROR to the. Circuit Court of West Tennessee, This cause was argued by Mr. Eaton, fer the Hdtrzsa. *516 plaintiff in error, a and Mr. Harper, for the defendant in error. March 10th. a He cited, Cro. Eliz. 321. 1 Burr. 119.

Held: that although ' the title to the land was merely equitable! and that not to any specific tract of land, it could not pass, unless by a will proved and registered according to the laws of Ohio.

Held: that the entry cquld not be satisfied with lands lying in the first fork. *574 I*1 su°h a case, the entry could not be explained, and the survey supported, by oral testimony. The notoriety and names of places may be shown by such testimony, but the words of an entry are to 9°nstrued kj the Court .as any other written instrument. Feb. 20th.

United States v. Josef Perez, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat) 579 (1824), is a case of the Supreme Court of the United States. The decision held that when a criminal trial results in a hung jury, the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not prevent the defendant from being retried.

Held: that bank usages, established respecting demands on makers of promissory notes, and notices to. en-. dorsers, being known to dealers in the banks, they were bound by them, and that the usage was proper evidence to be submitted to a jury.

Held: in England, to stand committed; and, although from the contiguity, and, in some instances, reduced size of the States, and their union under the general government, the analogy is not perfect, yet it is obvious, that a removal from the seaboard to the frontier States, or vice versa, would be attended with all the hardships to a holder, especially one of the same State with the maker, that could result from crossing…

Ex parte Wood, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 603 (1824), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a patent could not be repealed based on summary proceedings without the opportunity for a jury trial. The case exemplifies a tradition in early 19th century United States patent caselaw in which patents were regarded specifically as an absolute property right to exclusive use of the invention, rather than requiring a balancing between public and private interests.

Held: that if the purchaser has neglécted to inform himself of such matters within his observation, as might have, prevented the pürchase, he shall bear the loss : and, *634 farther, even ail express warranty would not extend, to things discernable by ordinary vigilance. a The only remaining ground, then, on which the appellant’s claim can rest, is, secondly, that there has been; in fact, a sale by sample, and that this,…

Held: that the surety was discharged from his responsibility for moneys subsequently collected by his principal. THIS was a. case certified from the Circait. Court for the District of New-Jersey, upon a certificate pf a division of opinion of the Judges of that. Court.

Held: that a guarantee of a partnership debt is not liable, where the partnership debt is discharged, by carrying the proportions of each partner to his separate account, without notice to *725 the guarantee.

Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824), was a case set in the Banking Crisis of 1819, when many banks, including the Second Bank of the United States, demanded repayment for loans that they had issued on credit that they did not have. That led to an economic downturn and a shortage of money. In 1819, Ohio passed a law that put a tax on the Bank of the United States on the theory that taxing the bank would allow the state government to receive and distribute the scarce money. On September 17, 1819, Ohio Auditor Ralph Osborn was given permission to seize $100,000 from a branch of the Bank of the United States. However, his agents mistakenly took $120,000 although the extra $20,000 was promptly returned.