United States Reports

Clerke v. Harwood, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 342 (1797), was a United States Supreme Court case that followed the court's decision in Ware v. Hylton, concerning debts owed to British subjects. In the Ware case, the Supreme Court had reversed a decision by the Maryland Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, and restored the decision of a Maryland trial court. In the Clerke case, the Supreme Court considered what should happen to cases presenting a similar question, once the holding of their appeals-court decision had been reversed. Should they be sent back to the Maryland Court of Appeals, or directly back to the trial court?

Brown v. Van Braam, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 344 (1797), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that: "Under the practice of the courts of Rhode Island, as adopted by the judiciary act, (1 U. S. Stats, at Large, 73,) the entry of a default, after a plea of the general issue, no similar being on the record, does not operate a discontinuance, and a judgment on the default is valid. Under the same practice the court may assess the damages in an action of assumpsit on a foreign bill payable in pounds sterling. Interest on affirmance is to be calculated on the aggregate sum of principal and interest in the judgment below, to the time of affirmance, but no further.."

Brown v. Barry, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 365 (1797), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court determined the following: The suspension of a statute for a limited time is not a repeal of it. The intention of the legislature when discovered must prevail, any rule of construction. declared by previous acts, to the contrary notwithstanding. In an action on a bill of exchange, which had not been protested for non-payment, it is not necessary to aver in the declaration that the bill had been protested for non-acceptance. As to bills of exchange drawn in the United States payable in Europe, the custom of merchants in this country does not ordinarily require, to recover on a protest for non-payment, that a protest for non-acceptance shall be produced, though the bills were not accepted.

Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 171 (1796), is an early United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a yearly tax on carriages did not violate the Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 requirements for the apportioning of direct taxes. The Court concluded that the carriage tax was not a direct tax, which would require apportionment among the states. The Court noted that a tax on land was an example of a direct tax that was contemplated by the Constitution. The case is also significant for being the first case by the Supreme Court to rely on judicial review, later formally established by Marbury v. Madison (1803), to decide whether a statute of Congress was unconstitutional.

Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796), also known as the British Debt Case, was a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that treaties take precedence over state law under the U.S. Constitution. It was the first Supreme Court case concerned with treaties, the first to rule that treaty provisions were as binding as domestic U.S. law, and the first to affirm the supremacy of federal law over state law. Ware is also notable for articulating the legal doctrine that would later be known as judicial review, whereby federal courts have the authority to settle conflicts of law.

United States v. La Vengeance, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 297 (1796), was a 1796 decision of the United States Supreme Court which found that a proceeding by the United States to forfeit a vessel is a cause of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. Specifically, "[a]n injunction to enforce the forfeiture of a vessel, for an illegal exportation of arms and ammunition, is a civil cause of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. The courts will take judicial notice of a geographical fact."

United States v. Hamilton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 17 (1795), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a defendant charged with treason was released on bail, despite having been imprisoned under a warrant of committal issued by a district court judge.

Bingham v. Cabot, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 19 (1795), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Cabot family, a wealthy Yankee shipping family from New England. In the case the court held in a mixed seriatim opinion: On the return of the record (to which were annexed several depositions and papers produced in the court below, as well as the papers referred to in the bill of exceptions) the following errors were assigned, the defendant in error pleaded in nullo est erratum, and issue was thereupon joined: That judgment had been given for the plaintiff, instead of the defendant below, on the 3rd Count.

United States v. Lawrence, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 42 (1795), was a United States Supreme Court case determining that the Supreme Court cannot normally compel a federal trial judge to proceed in a case which he feels is lacking sufficient evidence to proceed. In the case, the court held: Where a judge of the district court, acting in his judicial capacity, determined that evidence was not sufficient to authorize him to proceed in a case before him, this Court has no power to compel him to decide according to the dictates of any judgment but his own, whatever might be the difference of sentiment entertained by the court.

Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 54 (1795), was a United States Supreme Court case about prize causes. It held that federal district courts have the powers that had been granted to the Court of Appeals in Cases of Capture under the Congress of the Articles of Confederation: it was held that the Congress under the Confederation had power to erect a court of appeals in prize causes, that its decrees were conclusive, and that the district courts of the United States created under the Constitution have, as courts of admiralty, power to carry into effect the decrees of the former court of appeals in prize causes erected by the Congress of the Confederation.

United States v. Peters, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 121 (1795), was a United States Supreme Court case determining that the federal district court has no jurisdiction over a foreign privateer where the intended captured ship was not within the jurisdiction of the court. The Supreme Court may prohibit the district court from proceeding in such a matter. In the decision the court held: The district court has no jurisdiction of a libel for damages, against a privateer, commissioned by a foreign belligerent power, for the capture of an American vessel as prize—the captured vessel not being within the jurisdiction. The supreme court will grant a writ of prohibition to a district judge, when he is proceeding in a cause of which the district court has no jurisdiction.

Talbot v. Janson, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 133 (1795), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the jurisdiction of the court extended to the seas and that a citizen of the United States could also hold the citizenship of another polity (in the case of Talbot, being a citizen of France). This holding means that multiple citizenship may be held by Americans.

Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 1 (1794), was an early United States Supreme Court case holding that debts sequestered but not declared forfeit by states during the American Revolution could be recovered by bondholders. It is the only reported jury trial in the history of the Supreme Court.

Glass v. The Sloop Betsey, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 6 (1794), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that French consuls in the United States cannot hear cases to determine the property rights of foreign ships captured by French vessels and brought into American ports.

Georgia v. Brailsford, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 415 (1793), was a United States Supreme Court case continuing the case of Georgia v. Brailsford (1792). Here, the court held that "upon a motion to dissolve that injunction, this court held that, if the state of Georgia had the title in the debt, (upon which no opinion was then expressed,) she had an adequate remedy at law by action upon the bond; but, in order that the money might be kept for the party to whom it belonged, ordered the injunction to be continued till the next term, and, if Georgia should not then have instituted her action at common law, to be dissolved."

Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793), is considered the first United States Supreme Court case of significance and impact. The Court in a 4–1 decision ruled in favor of Alexander Chisholm, executor of an estate of a citizen of South Carolina, holding that Article III, Section 2 grants federal courts jurisdiction in cases between a state and a citizen of another state wherein the state is the defendant.

Collet v. Collet, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 294 (C.C.D. Pa. 1792), was a Supreme Court of the United States decision that was the earliest appellate case docketed although it was never heard by the Court. Van Staphorst v. Maryland was the first case docketed with the court. West v. Barnes was the first case decided by the court.

Georgia v. Brailsford, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 402 (1792), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "[a] State may sue in the Supreme Court to enjoin payment of a judgment in behalf of a British creditor taken on a debt, which was confiscated by the State, until it can be ascertained to whom the money belongs".

Hayburn's Case, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 409 (1792), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States was invited to rule on whether certain non-judicial duties could be assigned by Congress to the federal circuit courts in their official capacity. This was the first time that the Supreme Court addressed the issue of justiciability. Congress eventually reassigned the duties in question, and the Supreme Court never gave judgment in this case.

West v. Barnes, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 401 (1791), was the first United States Supreme Court decision and the earliest case calling for oral argument. Van Staphorst v. Maryland (1791) was docketed prior to West v. Barnes but settled before the Court heard the case: West was argued on August 2 and decided on August 3, 1791. Collet v. Collet (1792) was the first appellate case docketed with the Court but was dropped before it could be heard. Supreme Court Reporter Alexander Dallas did not publish the justices' full opinions in West v. Barnes, which were published in various newspapers around the country at the time, but he published an abbreviated summary of the decision.