Oswald v. State of New York, 1 L. Ed. 438 (1793). · Go Syfert
Search
Oswald v. State of New York, 1 L. Ed. 438 (1793). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
22 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Webster Hughes v. Priderock Capital Partners, LLC. (ca11, 2020-04-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1902 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1902 1964 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Webster Hughes v. Priderock Capital Partners, LLC.
11th Cir. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence low
But whatever the term, “all implied contract actions were part of the action of assumpsit, which was an action at law under the common law.” Id. at 390 ; see also Georgia v. Brailsford, 2 U.S. (Dall.) 415 , 417 (1793) (Iredell, J.) (referring to assumpsit as “the legal panacea of modern times”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
OSWALD, Administrator, versus the STATE of NEW-YORK.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 20, 1793.
1 L. Ed. 438
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

PROCLAMATION was made in this cause, "that any person having authority to appear for the State of New-York is required to appear accordingly;" and no person appearing it was ordered, on motion of Coxe for the Plaintiff,

BY THE COURT: — Unless the State appears by the first day of next Term to the above suit, or shew cause to the contrary, judgment will be entered by default against the said state.[*]

[*] See ant. p. 401 and also post. Chisholm, executor, versus Georgia. Cutting, administrator, versus South Carolina. Grayson versus Virginia