![James D. Porter and Others, Plaintiffs in Error v. Bushrod W. Foley](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![James D. Porter and Others, Plaintiffs in Error v. Bushrod W. Foley](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
James D. Porter and Others, Plaintiffs in Error v. Bushrod W. Foley
65 U.S. 415, 1860.SCT.0000048
-
- 0,99 €
-
- 0,99 €
Publisher Description
Mr. Headington opposed the motion to dismiss the writ upon the ground that the statutes in question violate the seventh section of the compact of 1789 between Virginia and Kentucky, (1 Stanton's Ky. Stat., 82,) and are therefore repugnant to the tenth section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States. Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheaton, 1.
More Books by United States Supreme Court
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure Annotated 2023
2023
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Annotated 2023
2023
Federal Rules of Evidence Annotated 2023
2023
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Annotated 2023
2023
Federal Rules of Evidence, Criminal Procedure, Civil Procedure and Appellate Procedure 2023
2023
Federal Rules of Evidence, Criminal Procedure, Civil Procedure, Appellate Procedure and Bankruptcy Procedure 2023
2023