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.
Joseph H. Dulles, Edward Wilcox, and John Welsh, Plaintiffs in error, v. Richard S. Jones, 1850 — 50 U.S. 530 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Joseph H. Dulles, Edward Wilcox, and John Welsh, Plaintiffs in error, v. Richard S. Jones
50 U.S. 5309 How. 530·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
Joseph H. Dulles, Edward Wilcox, and John Welsh, Plaintiffs in error, v. Richard S. Jones.
[MAJORITY]
. This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the District Court for the Northern District of -Mississippi:
In its main features it was similar to the preceding case of The Bank of the State of Alabama v. Dalton, and it will be .perceived, by a reference. to the concluding sentence of the opinion ■of the court in that case, that it included the present. No further report need, therefore, be made of it.
Order.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Mississippi, and was' argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and.adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said District Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, affirmed, with costs.