Hugh Boyle, Plaintiff in Error v. Zacharie and Turner, Defendants in Error

Hugh Boyle, Plaintiff in Error v. Zacharie and Turner, Defendants in Error. The judges of this court, who were in the minority of the court upon the general question as to the constitutionality of state insolvent laws, concurred in the opinion of Mr Justice Johnson, in the case of Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheaton, 213. That opinion is therefore to be deemed: the opinion of the other judges, who-assented to that judgment. Whatever principles are established in that •' opinion, are to be considered no longer open for controversy, hut the settled law of the court. ■ ERROR to the circuit court of the district of Maryland. Before this ease came on for argument, Mr Wirt, in behalf of the-, plaintiff (the original defendant), inquired of the court, whether the opinion of Mr Justice Johnson, delivered in the case of Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. Rep. 213, was adopted by the other judges who concurred in the judgment in that case. [MAJORITY — Mr Chief Justice Marshall said.] Mr Chief Justice Marshall said. The judges who were in the minority of the court upon the general question as to .the constitutionality of state-insolvent'laws, concurred in the opinion of Mr Justice Johnson in the case of Ogden v. Saunders. That opinion is therefore to be deemed the opinion, of the other-judges who. assented to that judgment. Whatever principles are established in that opinion, are to be considered no longer .openTor. controversy, but the settled, law of the court.