Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
George Briscoe and others, plaintiffs in error v. The Commonwealth's Bank of the State of Kentucky; The Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York, plaintiffs v. George Miln; George Briscoe and others, plaintiffs in error v. The Commonwealth's Bank of the State of Kentucky; The Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York, plaintiffs v. George Miln, 1834 — 33 U.S. 118 · caselaw · US
General
George Briscoe and others, plaintiffs in error v. The Commonwealth's Bank of the State of Kentucky; The Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York, plaintiffs v. George Miln; George Briscoe and others, plaintiffs in error v. The Commonwealth's Bank of the State of Kentucky; The Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York, plaintiffs v. George Miln
33 U.S. 1188 Pet. 118·Supreme Court of the United States·1834
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
George Briscoe and others, plaintiffs in error v. The Commonwealth’s Bank of the State of Kentucky. The Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York, plaintiffs v. George Miln. George Briscoe and others, plaintiffs in error v. The Commonwealth’s Bank of the State of Kentucky. The Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York, plaintiffs v George Miln.
The case was argued by Mr White and Mr Wilde, for the plaintiffs in error; and by Mr Hardin and Mr Bibb, for the defendant.
The case was argued by Mr Ogden, for the plaintiffs; and by Mr Jones, for the defendants.
[MAJORITY — Mr Chief Justice Marshall]
Mr Chief Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court in this and the preceding case.
The practice of this court is, not (except in cases of absolute necessity) to deliver any judgment in cases where constitutional questions are involved, unless four judges concur in opinion, thus making the decision that of a majority of the whole coui;t. In the present cases four judges do not concur in opinion as to the constitutional questions which have been argued. The court therefore direct these cases to be reargued at the next term, under tihev expectation that a larger number Of the judges may then heqpresent.
Note. Mr Justice Johnson and Mr Justice Duvall were absent when these cases were argued.