Williams v. Bruffy
96 U.S. 176, 1877.SCT.0000131
-
- $0.99
-
- $0.99
Publisher Description
Mr. Timothy O. Howe and Mr. Enoch Totten for the plaintiffs in error. 1. In the decision in this cause there was drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under, Virginia, on the ground that it was repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, and the decision was in favor of such validity. If she had not violated the Constitution by entering into an 'agreement or compact' with other States, the debtor of the plaintiffs would not have been within the so-called Confederacy. The efficacy of the sequestration law, so far as it operated upon their rights and privileges, was imparted to it by Virginia, through her unlawful acts and combinations with other States.
Folsom v. Dewey. Stringfellow v. Cain (99 U. S. 610) Affirmed
1880
George Holmes, Plaintiff in Error v. Silas H. Jennison
1840
Ewing V. California
2003
Dred Scott, Plaintiff in Error v. John F. A. Sandford
1856
The State of Pennsylvania v. the Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company
1855
Coe v. Town of Errol
1886