Search Supreme Court Cases

REILY V. LAMAR, 6 U. S. 344 (1805)

U.S. Supreme Court

Reily v. Lamar, 6 U.S. 2 Cranch 344 344 (1805)

Reily v. Lamar

6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 344


When an appeal is prayed and granted in the circuit court during the session of the court, a citation to the appellee is not necessary.

By the separation of the District of Columbia from the State of Maryland, the residents in that part of Maryland which became apart of the District ceased to be citizens of that state.

A citizen of the District of Columbia could not be discharged by the insolvent law of Maryland.

Page 6 U. S. 345

This was an appeal from the decree of the Circuit Court of the County of Alexandria in the District of Columbia, in which court the appellant, Reily, had filed a bill in equity against the appellees claiming to be relieved from a judgment recovered against him by Lamar for the use of Beall, an exemplification of which had been filed by Beall in the clerk's office of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia for the County of Alexandria, and execution issued thereon, with intent to levy the same, to stay which, and all other proceedings at law, the bill prayed an injunction, &c. The circumstances upon which the appellant claimed the benefit of the equity jurisdiction of the court were not considered by the court as supported by evidence. He also claimed to be discharged from the debt under the provisions of an act of the Legislature of Maryland passed 3 January, 1810, and by the certificate of discharge, under the law, granted by the chancellor of Maryland on 4 April, 1801.

To the allegation of the appellant that he was discharged from the judgment of the insolvent law of Maryland the appellee, Beall, replied that he admitted that it appears by the proceedings that the deed from Reily to his trustee, under the insolvent law, for the benefit of his creditors, was dated on 23 December, 1800, and his discharge on 4 April, 1801, during all which time Reily lived either in the City of Washington or Town of Alexandria, and contends that as the court below had determined that the jurisdiction of Maryland and Virginia over the ceded territory ceased on the first Monday of December, 1800, the Legislature or chancellor of Maryland had no power to pass such law, or give such discharge to the said Reily.

At February term, 1804, a preliminary question was suggested by Mason for the appellees whether a citation was not necessary in cases of appeals, as well as in cases of writs of error, under the twenty-second section of the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Page 6 U. S. 356

Powered by Justia US Supreme Court Center: REILY V. LAMAR, 6 U. S. 344 (1805)

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw 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.