WHELAN v. U S, 11 U.S. 112 (1812)

U.S. Supreme Court

WHELAN v. U S, 11 U.S. 112 (1812)

11 U.S. 112 (Cranch)

WHELAN
v.
THE UNITED STATES.

Feb. 20, 1812

THIS cause standing so late on the docket that it was not likely to be called for trial at this term, DALLAS, for the United States, suggested the propriety of assigning a particular day for the hearing, as it was a case of importance, and involved a question of jurisdiction, viz: whether a seizure of a vessel, on waters navigable from the sea for vessels of ten and more tons burthen, for breach of a law of the United States, was to be tried by a jury. This question was said to be important because the judge of the district of Pennsylvania had refused to try any cases of that kind, until the question was finally settled by this Court.

The Court accordingly assigned a day for bearing that question, but intimated an opinion that it was already decided in the cases of the Vengeance 3. Dall. 297.-The Betsy and Charlotte. 4. Cranch, 443. and Yeaton v. United States, 5.Cranch, 281.

E. TILGHMAN, for the Appellant, after looking into those cases, abandoned the question as to jurisdiction, considering the cases cited as conclusive against him.

THE COURT, (all the judges being present), said that the question had been certainly settled in this Court, upon full argument.


U.S. Supreme Court

WHELAN v. U S, 11 U.S. 112 (1812)

11 U.S. 112 (Cranch)

WHELAN
v.
THE UNITED STATES.

Feb. 20, 1812

THIS cause standing so late on the docket that it was not likely to be called for trial at this term, DALLAS, for the United States, suggested the propriety of assigning a particular day for the hearing, as it was a case of importance, and involved a question of jurisdiction, viz: whether a seizure of a vessel, on waters navigable from the sea for vessels of ten and more tons burthen, for breach of a law of the United States, was to be tried by a jury. This question was said to be important because the judge of the district of Pennsylvania had refused to try any cases of that kind, until the question was finally settled by this Court.

The Court accordingly assigned a day for bearing that question, but intimated an opinion that it was already decided in the cases of the Vengeance 3. Dall. 297.-The Betsy and Charlotte. 4. Cranch, 443. and Yeaton v. United States, 5.Cranch, 281.

E. TILGHMAN, for the Appellant, after looking into those cases, abandoned the question as to jurisdiction, considering the cases cited as conclusive against him.

THE COURT, (all the judges being present), said that the question had been certainly settled in this Court, upon full argument.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.