CARTWRIGHT v. HOWE, 42 U.S. 188 (1843)

U.S. Supreme Court

CARTWRIGHT v. HOWE, 42 U.S. 188 (1843)

42 U.S. 188 (How.)

ELIZABETH R. CARTWRIGHT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
ALEXANDER T. HOWE, GEORGE F. RICHARDS, AND WILLIAM RICHARDS, DEFENDANTS.

January Term, 1843

THIS cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, holden in and for the county of Washington, and it having been stated by Mr. Bradley, of counsel for the defendant in error, that the matters in controversy had been agreed and settled between the parties, to which Mr. R. J. Brent, of counsel for the plaintiff in error, assented; it is thereupon now here ordered and adjudged by this court that this cause be and the same is hereby dismissed, with costs.


U.S. Supreme Court

CARTWRIGHT v. HOWE, 42 U.S. 188 (1843)

42 U.S. 188 (How.)

ELIZABETH R. CARTWRIGHT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
ALEXANDER T. HOWE, GEORGE F. RICHARDS, AND WILLIAM RICHARDS, DEFENDANTS.

January Term, 1843

THIS cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, holden in and for the county of Washington, and it having been stated by Mr. Bradley, of counsel for the defendant in error, that the matters in controversy had been agreed and settled between the parties, to which Mr. R. J. Brent, of counsel for the plaintiff in error, assented; it is thereupon now here ordered and adjudged by this court that this cause be and the same is hereby dismissed, with costs.

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.