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.
John McNulty, Plaintiff in error, v. John Batty and others, 1850 — 51 U.S. 646 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
John McNulty, Plaintiff in error, v. John Batty and others
51 U.S. 64610 How. 646·Supreme Court of the United States·1850
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
John McNulty, Plaintiff in error, v. John Batty and others.
(See p. 72.)
[MAJORITY — Mr. Walker,]
Mr. Walker,
of counsel for the defendants in error, moved the court to direct the clerk to what court the mandate, or other process prescribed by the forty-third rule of court, should be addressed. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered-by the court, that the clerk do not issue any mandate or other process in this case, but only a certified copy of the judgment this day rendered in this cause;