FARMERS AND MECHANICS' BANK OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
SMITH
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court reversed a Pennsylvania state court judgment that had favored a defendant who was a citizen of the same state as the plaintiffs bank. Chief Justice Marshall held that the U.S. Constitution applies equally to all citizens and courts regardless of whether parties are from the same state, rejecting the state court's distinction based on the parties' common citizenship.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opi-ni°n of the Court, that this case was not distinguishable from its former decisions on the same subject,a except by the circumstances, that the defendant, in the present case, was a citizen of the same State with the plaintiffs, at the time the contract Was made in that State, and remained such at the time the suit was commenced in its Courts. But that these facts made no difference in the cases. The constitution of the United States was made for the whole people of the Union, and is equally binding upon all the Courts and all the citizens.
Judgment reversed.
Judgment. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record of the Supreme Court for the Eastern District of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, the Court is of opinion, that the said Supreme Court for the Eastern District of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, erred in giving judgment for the defendant, on the demurrer of the plaintiffs to the plea of the said defendant. It is, therefore, adjudged and ordered, that the judgment of the said Supreme Court for the Eastern District of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania be, and the same is hereby reversed and annulled. And it is farther ordered, that the said cause be remanded . / . . to the .said Supreme Court for the Eastern District of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with directions to enter judgment for the plaintiffs in the said Court.
a
Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. Rep. 122. M‘MilIan M'Neill, id. 209.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Home Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (U.S. 1934)…int Of illegality and thus permits enforcement, as, e.g., by-the repeal of a statute making a contract void for usury. Ewell v. Daggs, 108 U.S. 143, 151. See, in addition to cases cited in the text, the following: Farmers & Mechanics Bank v. Smith, 6 Wheat. 131; Piqua Bank v. Knoop, 16 How. 369; Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. 331; Jefferson Branch Bank v. Skelly, 1 Black 436; State Tax on Foreign-held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300; Farrington v. Tennessee, 95 U.S. 679; Murray v. Charleston, 96 U.S. 432; Hartman v. Greenh…
-
Ogden, 12 Wheat. 213 (U.S. 1827)
-
The Planters' Bank of Miss. v. Sharp, 6 How. 301 (U.S. 1848)…, or if to past ones, relate to modes of proceeding-in courts, to the form of remedy merely, to priority to some classes of creditors (5 Cranch, 298), to the kind of process (9 Peters, 319; 10 Wheat. 51), to the length of the statute of limitations (6 Wheat. 131; 2 Mason, 168; 3 Johns. Ch. 190; 4 Wheat. 200; 1 Howard, 315), to exempting the body from imprisonment (4 Wheat. 200), or tools and household goods from seizure (16 Johns. 244; 1 Howard, 15; 11 Martin, 730), or'affecting some privilege attached to t…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122 (U.S. 1819)