Armstrong v. Carson
Cases that cite this one
34 later published cases cite this decision. The 23 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Union & Planters' Bank of Memphis v. City of Memphis (6th Cir. 1901)
- Hitchcock & Fitch v. Aicken (New York Supreme Court 1803)
- Bettendorf v. St. Croix County (7th Cir. 2011)
- Whitney Benefits, Inc., and Peter Kiewit Sons' Company v. The United States (Fed. Cir. 1985)
- Kroner v. City of Portland (Or. 1925)
- Brudenell v. Vaux (Supreme Court of the United States 1794)
- Town of Gurley v. M & N Materials, Inc. (Ala. 2012)
- City of Norwood v. Horney (Ohio 2006)
- Brody v. Village of Port Chester (2d Cir. 2005)
- Brody v. Village of Port Chester (2d Cir. 2005)
- In re Nomination Petition of Pippy (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1998)
- STATE EX REL. CONVENTION CENTER v. Evans (Wash. 1998)
- State v. Evans (Wash. 1998)
- United States v. Washington (9th Cir. 1998)
- United States v. Washington (9th Cir. 1998)
- United States v. Washington (9th Cir. 1998)
- Clark v. Savings & Trust Co. of Pennsylvania (In re Clark) (United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1981)
- Com'rs of Hwys. of Towns of Annawan v. United States (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1979)
- In re the Valuation Proceedings under Sections 303(c) & 306 (Special Court Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 1977)
- In re Penn Central Transportation Company (Special Court Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 1974)
- In re Penn Central Transportation Company (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1974)
- State ex rel. Hardy v. State Board of Equalization (Mont. 1958)
- González Vélez v. Superior Court of Puerto Rico (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1953)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
ARMSTRONG
versus
CARSON's Executors.
Supreme Court of United States.
*303 Ingersoll declined arguing the point for the defendant, thinking it clearly against him.
WILSON, Justice:
There can be no difficulty in this case. If the plea would be bad in the Courts of New Jersey, it is bad here: for, whatever doubts there might be on the words of the Constitution, the act of Congress effectually removes them; declaring in direct terms, that the record shall have the same effect in this Court, as in the Court from which it was taken. In the courts of New Jersey no such plea would be sustained; and, therefore, it is inadmissible in any Court sitting in Pennsylvania.
Bradford then proposed settling the interest; but WILSON, Justice, observed, that he had had more than one occasion to object to the Court's interposing, in any form, to assess damages. In some States, he said, it had, indeed, grown into a practice; and the Courts had in that, and, perhaps, in many other instances, done the business which ought to go to a Jury. Lewis referred to a case in the Supreme Court of the United States, in which this point had been made, tho' not directly, decided; but the Judge said, it was not the foundation of the judgment of the Court; and that, in his opinion, a Writ of Enquiry was the regular mode of proceeding.[*]
It being suggested, however, that the usage in the State Courts was to enter the judgment generally; and that the plaintiff must ascertain the debt, and issue execution at his own peril; that mode was adopted on the present occasion.
Judgment for the Plaintiff.
NOTES
[*] But see Brown v. Van Braam in the Supreme Court of the United States.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.