List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 27

This is a list of cases reported in volume 27 (2 Pet.) of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1829.[1]

Supreme Court of the United States
Map
38°53′26″N 77°00′16″W / 38.89056°N 77.00444°W / 38.89056; -77.00444
EstablishedMarch 4, 1789; 235 years ago (1789-03-04)
LocationWashington, D.C.
Coordinates38°53′26″N 77°00′16″W / 38.89056°N 77.00444°W / 38.89056; -77.00444
Composition methodPresidential nomination with Senate confirmation
Authorized byConstitution of the United States, Art. III, § 1
Judge term lengthlife tenure, subject to impeachment and removal
Number of positions9 (by statute)
Websitesupremecourt.gov

Nominative reports

In 1874, the U.S. government created the United States Reports, and retroactively numbered older privately-published case reports as part of the new series. As a result, cases appearing in volumes 1–90 of U.S. Reports have dual citation forms; one for the volume number of U.S. Reports, and one for the volume number of the reports named for the relevant reporter of decisions (these are called "nominative reports").

Richard Peters, Jr.

Starting with the 26th volume of U.S. Reports, the Reporter of Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States was Richard Peters, Jr. Peters was Reporter of Decisions from 1828 to 1843, covering volumes 26 through 41 of United States Reports which correspond to volumes 1 through 16 of his Peters's Reports. As such, the dual form of citation to, for example, Smith v. Foxall is 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 595 (1829).

Justices of the Supreme Court at the time of 27 U.S. (2 Pet.)

The Supreme Court is established by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .". The size of the Court is not specified; the Constitution leaves it to Congress to set the number of justices. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 Congress originally fixed the number of justices at six (one chief justice and five associate justices).[2] Since 1789 Congress has varied the size of the Court from six to seven, nine, ten, and back to nine justices (always including one chief justice).

When the cases in 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) were decided, the Court comprised these six justices (although a seventh justice, John McLean, was confirmed by the United States Senate in March 1829 after the death of Justice Robert Trimble, McLean did not take his seat on the Supreme Court until January 1830 and so did not participate in the decision of cases reported in 27 U.S. (2 Pet.)):

PortraitJusticeOfficeHome StateSucceededDate confirmed by the Senate
(Vote)
Tenure on Supreme Court
John MarshallChief JusticeVirginiaOliver EllsworthJanuary 27, 1801
(Acclamation)
February 4, 1801

July 6, 1835
(Died)
Bushrod WashingtonAssociate JusticeVirginiaJames WilsonDecember 20, 1798
(Acclamation)
November 9, 1798
(Recess Appointment)

November 26, 1829
(Died)
William JohnsonAssociate JusticeSouth CarolinaAlfred MooreMarch 24, 1804
(Acclamation)
May 7, 1804

August 4, 1834
(Died)
Gabriel Duvall
Associate JusticeMarylandSamuel ChaseNovember 18, 1811
(Acclamation)
November 23, 1811

January 12, 1835
(Resigned)
Joseph Story
Associate JusticeMassachusettsWilliam CushingNovember 18, 1811
(Acclamation)
February 3, 1812

September 10, 1845
(Died)
Smith ThompsonAssociate JusticeNew YorkHenry Brockholst LivingstonDecember 9, 1823
(Acclamation)
September 1, 1823

December 18, 1843
(Died)

Notable Cases in 27 U.S. (2 Pet.)

Pennock v. Dialogue

In Pennock v. Dialogue, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 1 (1829), the Supreme Court held invalid a patent on a method of making hose because the inventor had commercially exploited the invention for years before filing the patent application. The case has been cited many times for the proposition that the U.S. patent system was not established for the purpose of enriching inventors or their financiers but rather for the purpose of furthering the public interest by stimulating technological progress.[3]

Willson v. Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co.

Willson v. Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co., 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 245 (1829), was a significant Supreme Court decision regarding the definition of the Commerce Clause in Article 1 sec. 8, cl. 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Willson, the owner of a sloop licensed under federal navigation laws, broke through a dam built by the Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co. that blocked his passage. The company brought a case against Willson, claiming that Delaware authorized the building of the dam through a law which was passed under the police power of the state in order to clean up a health hazard, and there was no legislation by Congress dealing with the same subject matter. Willson claimed that the law authorizing the building of the dam was a violation of the Commerce Clause. He believed he had a constitutional right to navigate coastal streams, and Delaware's actions were motivated by private profits. Chief Justice John Marshall affirmed the lower court's decision, that because no federal law dealt specifically with the situation, and since the Delaware law did not violate Congress' Dormant Commerce Clause power, the state law was valid.

Citation style

Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 the federal court structure at the time comprised District Courts, which had general trial jurisdiction; Circuit Courts, which had mixed trial and appellate (from the US District Courts) jurisdiction; and the United States Supreme Court, which had appellate jurisdiction over the federal District and Circuit courts—and for certain issues over state courts. The Supreme Court also had limited original jurisdiction (i.e., in which cases could be filed directly with the Supreme Court without first having been heard by a lower federal or state court). There were one or more federal District Courts and/or Circuit Courts in each state, territory, or other geographical region.

Bluebook citation style is used for case names, citations, and jurisdictions.

List of cases in 27 U.S. (2 Pet.)

Case NamePage and yearOpinion of the CourtConcurring opinion(s)Dissenting opinion(s)Lower CourtDisposition
Pennock v. Dialogue1 (1829)StorynonenoneC.C.D. Pa.affirmed
Columbian Insurance Company v. Lawrence25 (1829)MarshallnonenoneC.C.D.C.reversed
Gardner v. Collins58 (1829)StorynonenoneC.C.D.R.I.certification
Williams v. Second Bank of the United States96 (1829)WashingtonnonenoneC.C.D. Ohioaffirmed
Venable v. Second Bank of the United States107 (1829)StorynonenoneC.C.D. Ky.affirmed
Second Bank of the United States v. Corcoran121 (1829)WashingtonnonenoneC.C.D.C.affirmed
Jackson v. Twentyman136 (1829)per curiamnonenoneC.C.S.D.N.Y.dismissed
Van Ness v. Pacard137 (1829)StorynonenoneC.C.D.C.affirmed
Boyce v. Anderson150 (1829)MarshallnonenoneC.C.D. Ky.affirmed
Thompson v. Tolmie157 (1829)ThompsonnonenoneC.C.D.C.reversed
Townsley v. Sumrall170 (1829)StorynonenoneC.C.D. Ky.affirmed
Le Roy Bayard Company v. Johnson186 (1829)WashingtonnonenoneC.C.D.C.affirmed
Hunt v. Wickliffe201 (1829)MarshallnonenoneC.C.D. Ky.reversed
Patterson v. Jenks216 (1829)MarshallnonenoneC.C.D. Ga.reversed
Harper v. Butler239 (1829)MarshallnonenoneD. Miss.reversed
Powell's Lessee v. Harman241 (1829)MarshallnonenoneC.C.D.W. Tenn.certification
Ritchie v. Mauro243 (1829)MarshallnonenoneC.C.D.C.dismissed
Willson v. Black-Bird Creek Marsh Company245 (1829)MarshallnonenoneDel.affirmed
Foster v. Neilson253 (1829)MarshallnonenoneD. La.affirmed
Bank of Kentucky v. Wister318 (1829)JohnsonnonenoneC.C.D. Ky.affirmed
Bank of Kentucky v. Ashley327 (1829)JohnsonnonenoneC.C.D. Ky.affirmed
Second Bank of the United States v. Weisiger331 (1829)JohnsonnonenoneC.C.D. Ky.reversed
Campbell's Executors v. Francis354 (1829)JohnsonnonenoneC.C.D.C.affirmed
American Fur Company v. United States358 (1829)WashingtonnonenoneD. Ind.reversed
Dandridge v. Washington's Executors370 (1829)MarshallnonenoneC.C.D.C.reversed
Satterlee v. Matthewson380 (1829)WashingtonJohnsonnonePa.affirmed
Reynolds v. McArthur417 (1829)MarshallnonenoneOhioaffirmed
Southwick v. Postmaster General442 (1829)MarshallnonenoneC.C.S.D.N.Y.dismissed
Weston v. City of Charleston449 (1829)MarshallnoneJohnson, ThompsonS.C. Const. Ct.reversed
Second Bank of the United States v. Weisiger481 (1829)per curiamnonenoneC.C.D. Ky.decree entered
Mandeville v. Riggs482 (1829)StorynonenoneC.C.D.C.reversed
Bank of Hamilton v. Dudley's Lessee492 (1829)MarshallnonenoneOhioaffirmed
Second Bank of the United States v. Owens527 (1829)JohnsonnonenoneC.C.D. Ky.certification
Second Bank of the United States v. Carneal543 (1829)StorynonenoneC.C.D. Ohioreversed
Canter v. American Ocean Insurance Company554 (1829)Marshallnonenonenot indicatedmotion overruled
Conolly v. Taylor556 (1829)MarshallnonenoneC.C.D. Ky.affirmed
Beatty v. Kurtz566 (1829)StorynonenoneC.C.D.C.affirmed
Buckner v. Finley586 (1829)WashingtonnonenoneC.C.D. Md.certification
Smith v. Foxall595 (1829)ThompsonnonenoneC.C.D.C.multiple
Chirac v. Reinecker613 (1829)StorynonenoneC.C.D. Md.reversed
Wilkinson v. Leland627 (1829)StorynonenoneC.C.D.R.I.reversed
Le Grand v. Darnall664 (1829)DuvallnonenoneC.C.D. Md.affirmed
Bank of Columbia v. Sweeny671 (1829)MarshallnonenoneC.C.D.C.affirmed
Beach v. Viles 675 (1829)StorynonenoneC.C.D. Mass.affirmed

Notes and references

See also

External links