hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position (current method)
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
United States (United States) 34 0 Browse Search
John H. Claiborne 31 1 Browse Search
Ind 26 0 Browse Search
Wm B. Isaacs 10 0 Browse Search
Butler 10 8 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 8 0 Browse Search
Louisa Hall 6 0 Browse Search
Baldwin 6 0 Browse Search
Johnson 5 1 Browse Search
China (China) 4 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of The Daily Dispatch: March 24, 1863., [Electronic resource]. Search the whole document.

Found 72 total hits in 30 results.

1 2 3
United States (United States) (search for this): article 2
as been asserted by many legal writers and received the sanction of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Mitchell vs. Harmony (13th Howard, p. --.) I do not think that this questy for public uses is one inherent in all sovereignties; but under the Constitution of the Confederate States this right can only be exercised when the legislative body should have decided that the pu 17 8 Camden and Amboy R. R. Co.; 1 Baldwin C. C. R., p 205) The Constitution of the Confederate States was made for a time of war as well as of peace. It was formed and adopted by the several of this remedy against Claiborne, because he is an officer in the military service of the Confederate States, and as such is exempt from arrest under civil process. The remedy of Isaacs is not, tconclusion, the learned Judge referred to the following authorities: Caborn et ats vs. Bank of United States--Wheaton, 74; 24 Rob Price co. 233, 236 Crenshaw vs. Slate River Company--6 Rand., 215.
Mohawk (New York, United States) (search for this): article 2
whether the public necessity does require the taking of private property for public use, when that discretion is, by the Constitution, vested in Congress alone? But even if Congress had passed a law authorizing impressments, it would have been compelled to provide by law come impartial tribunal for ascertaining the fair and just value of the property taken, and to make ample provision for the payment to the owner, without unreasonable delay of the compensation ascertained (Bloodgood vs Mohawk and Hudson R R. Co., 18 Wend, 9 Rogers vs Bradshaw, 20th Johnson's R p 7.5. Martin expert 13 Arkansas R p. 193; 1st Baldwin C C. R p 227. Smith's Common Con. Laws p 467-475; 8 Pickering R p 501.) According to numerous decisions, "just compensation" means an equivalent — a recompense in value or the property taken — what the article would sell for in the market, and not the price which the owner might demand or which some person or special reason, might be willing to give (1st Sedgwic
Slate River (Virginia, United States) (search for this): article 2
he defendant should fall or refuse to do this, an attachment would be issued against him, and he would be arrested and committed to jail until he should comply with the law. According to our practice, this is one of the most effectual means of enforcing the payment of judgments, and is frequently resorted to; but the plaintiff in this suit cannot avail himself of this remedy against Claiborne, because he is an officer in the military service of the Confederate States, and as such is exempt from arrest under civil process. The remedy of Isaacs is not, therefore, complete and adequate at law — irreparable injury to him might be the consequence of refusing to grant an injunction; it is, in my opinion the only complete and effectual remedy, and for that reason ought to be granted. In conclusion, the learned Judge referred to the following authorities: Caborn et ats vs. Bank of United States--Wheaton, 74; 24 Rob Price co. 233, 236 Crenshaw vs. Slate River Company--6 Rand., 215.
Arkansas (Arkansas, United States) (search for this): article 2
cretion is, by the Constitution, vested in Congress alone? But even if Congress had passed a law authorizing impressments, it would have been compelled to provide by law come impartial tribunal for ascertaining the fair and just value of the property taken, and to make ample provision for the payment to the owner, without unreasonable delay of the compensation ascertained (Bloodgood vs Mohawk and Hudson R R. Co., 18 Wend, 9 Rogers vs Bradshaw, 20th Johnson's R p 7.5. Martin expert 13 Arkansas R p. 193; 1st Baldwin C C. R p 227. Smith's Common Con. Laws p 467-475; 8 Pickering R p 501.) According to numerous decisions, "just compensation" means an equivalent — a recompense in value or the property taken — what the article would sell for in the market, and not the price which the owner might demand or which some person or special reason, might be willing to give (1st Sedgwick on Damages, p 273; 1st Baldwin, p 338-310.) If Congress, then, in whom resides the power of emin
Pickering (search for this): article 2
had passed a law authorizing impressments, it would have been compelled to provide by law come impartial tribunal for ascertaining the fair and just value of the property taken, and to make ample provision for the payment to the owner, without unreasonable delay of the compensation ascertained (Bloodgood vs Mohawk and Hudson R R. Co., 18 Wend, 9 Rogers vs Bradshaw, 20th Johnson's R p 7.5. Martin expert 13 Arkansas R p. 193; 1st Baldwin C C. R p 227. Smith's Common Con. Laws p 467-475; 8 Pickering R p 501.) According to numerous decisions, "just compensation" means an equivalent — a recompense in value or the property taken — what the article would sell for in the market, and not the price which the owner might demand or which some person or special reason, might be willing to give (1st Sedgwick on Damages, p 273; 1st Baldwin, p 338-310.) If Congress, then, in whom resides the power of eminent domain, so far as the Confederate Government is concerned, has no right to autho
Martin (search for this): article 2
use, when that discretion is, by the Constitution, vested in Congress alone? But even if Congress had passed a law authorizing impressments, it would have been compelled to provide by law come impartial tribunal for ascertaining the fair and just value of the property taken, and to make ample provision for the payment to the owner, without unreasonable delay of the compensation ascertained (Bloodgood vs Mohawk and Hudson R R. Co., 18 Wend, 9 Rogers vs Bradshaw, 20th Johnson's R p 7.5. Martin expert 13 Arkansas R p. 193; 1st Baldwin C C. R p 227. Smith's Common Con. Laws p 467-475; 8 Pickering R p 501.) According to numerous decisions, "just compensation" means an equivalent — a recompense in value or the property taken — what the article would sell for in the market, and not the price which the owner might demand or which some person or special reason, might be willing to give (1st Sedgwick on Damages, p 273; 1st Baldwin, p 338-310.) If Congress, then, in whom resides
Bradshaw (search for this): article 2
ng of private property for public use, when that discretion is, by the Constitution, vested in Congress alone? But even if Congress had passed a law authorizing impressments, it would have been compelled to provide by law come impartial tribunal for ascertaining the fair and just value of the property taken, and to make ample provision for the payment to the owner, without unreasonable delay of the compensation ascertained (Bloodgood vs Mohawk and Hudson R R. Co., 18 Wend, 9 Rogers vs Bradshaw, 20th Johnson's R p 7.5. Martin expert 13 Arkansas R p. 193; 1st Baldwin C C. R p 227. Smith's Common Con. Laws p 467-475; 8 Pickering R p 501.) According to numerous decisions, "just compensation" means an equivalent — a recompense in value or the property taken — what the article would sell for in the market, and not the price which the owner might demand or which some person or special reason, might be willing to give (1st Sedgwick on Damages, p 273; 1st Baldwin, p 338-310.)
Rogers (search for this): article 2
re the taking of private property for public use, when that discretion is, by the Constitution, vested in Congress alone? But even if Congress had passed a law authorizing impressments, it would have been compelled to provide by law come impartial tribunal for ascertaining the fair and just value of the property taken, and to make ample provision for the payment to the owner, without unreasonable delay of the compensation ascertained (Bloodgood vs Mohawk and Hudson R R. Co., 18 Wend, 9 Rogers vs Bradshaw, 20th Johnson's R p 7.5. Martin expert 13 Arkansas R p. 193; 1st Baldwin C C. R p 227. Smith's Common Con. Laws p 467-475; 8 Pickering R p 501.) According to numerous decisions, "just compensation" means an equivalent — a recompense in value or the property taken — what the article would sell for in the market, and not the price which the owner might demand or which some person or special reason, might be willing to give (1st Sedgwick on Damages, p 273; 1st Baldwin, p 338-
John H. Claiborne (search for this): article 2
., and that he had been informed that Major John H. Claiborne, ing as was alleged, under the ordersupon the application was postponed, to allow Claiborne opportunity to show cause why the injunction should not be granted. Major Claiborne has filed an answer to the bill, in which he alleges that the bill was defective in not charging that Claiborne had impressed the flour; it only stated thathorized the impressment; it only states that Claiborne alleged that he had acted under such orders. The Commissary General, in his order to Major Claiborne, directing him to make impressments, in pe and adequate at law? Is the action of Maj Claiborne be illegal the plaintiff may the human , or the time of impressment. It is admitted by Claiborne in his answer that he has also impressed a lhas not as effectual a remedy at law against Claiborne as he would have against a private citizen w cannot avail himself of this remedy against Claiborne, because he is an officer in the military se[5 more...]
Hudson (search for this): article 2
e public necessity does require the taking of private property for public use, when that discretion is, by the Constitution, vested in Congress alone? But even if Congress had passed a law authorizing impressments, it would have been compelled to provide by law come impartial tribunal for ascertaining the fair and just value of the property taken, and to make ample provision for the payment to the owner, without unreasonable delay of the compensation ascertained (Bloodgood vs Mohawk and Hudson R R. Co., 18 Wend, 9 Rogers vs Bradshaw, 20th Johnson's R p 7.5. Martin expert 13 Arkansas R p. 193; 1st Baldwin C C. R p 227. Smith's Common Con. Laws p 467-475; 8 Pickering R p 501.) According to numerous decisions, "just compensation" means an equivalent — a recompense in value or the property taken — what the article would sell for in the market, and not the price which the owner might demand or which some person or special reason, might be willing to give (1st Sedgwick on Damage
1 2 3