March 10th.
This cause was argued by Mr. Webster and Mr. Berrien for the appellants, [1] and by Mr. Emmett and Mr. D. B. Ogden for the respondents. [2] March 14th.
Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.
Notes edit
- ↑ They cited, as to the necessity of a cross bill by the defendants, in order to establish the conveyances, 2 Madd. Ch. 329. 2. Ark. 133. 1 Ball and Beatty, 217. 2 Cox, 78. As to the manner in which a Court of equity acts upon an award, either by confirming it in toto or rejecting it, 1 Bro. Ch. 389. 3 Bro. Ch. 163. 1 Ves. Jun. 365. 2 Ves. Jun. 22. 4 Bro. Ch. 117. 536. As to the necessity of the award extending to all the matters of reference, 7 East's Rep. 81. As to the uncertainty and inconclusiveness of the award, 7 Term Rep. 69.
- ↑ To show that an award might be good in part, and void as to the residue, they cited 5 Wheat. Rep. 394. 3 Dessauss. 11. 14 Johns. Rep. 36. Kyd on Awards, 243, 261. and the cases there collected.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse