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.
Hartshorne's Lessee versus Patton, 1796 — 2 U.S. 252 · caselaw · US
General
Hartshorne's Lessee versus Patton
2 U.S. 2522 Dall. 252·Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·1796·PA
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
Hartshorne’s Lessee versus Patton.
THIS cause had been tried repeatedly in the city of Philadelphia ; but the Jury could not, in any instance, agree upon a verdict. Ingersoll, therefore, suggested to the Court, that in order to obtain a Jury, whose minds were unbiassed by reports, discussions, and conversations, relating to the controversy, the sheriff should be directed to return a pannel from the the county, exclusive of the city.
M'Kean, on the other hand,
observed, that the Court could not give any such directions without consent of the parties, and that, consent would not be given.
[MAJORITY — By the Court:]
By the Court:
—Can we direct the sheriff to take a Jury from any particular part of a county ? Surely not. There are no persons, in fact, interested, but the parties ; and if a legal exception can be established against the whole pannel, or any individual Juror, it will be allowed at the proper time.