Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Hollingsworth v. Duane

4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 353

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1801-05-01
Topic
bankruptcy

4 U.S. 353 (____) 4 Dall. 353 Hollingsworth v. Duane. Supreme Court of United States. *354 The COURT After a long advisement upon the subject, seemed to think, that alienage might have been a cause of challenge, before the juror was sworn; but, upon an extensive review of the authorities, they decided, that advantage could not be taken of it, after verdict. Rule discharged.[(1)] NOTES [(1)] Since the discussion of this case, the marshal has been directed not to return aliens upon the panel; and, in many instances, when aliens have been returned, the state, as well as the federal, Courts have discharged them, upon their own application.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Hollingsworth v. Duane. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
21 opinions
HOLLINGSWORTH v. DUANE,4 U.S. 353(1801)
Hollingsworthv. Duane.
MAY TERM, 1801.
IN this case (which was an action for a libel) the defendant filed a plea to the jurisdiction of the Court, on the ground, that he, as well as the plaintiff, was a citizen ofPennsylvania. Issue being joined on that fact, it was found, by the Jury, that the defendant was not a citizen; and thereupon, in consequence of a previous agreement, avenireissued to ascertain thequantumof damages, which the verdict settled at 600 dollars. AfterPage 354the verdict was given, it appeared that one of the jurors was an alien; andDallasobtained a rule to show cause, why the verdict should not be set aside for that reason.

On the argument, in support of the rule, it was contended, 1st. That the trial by jury, entire, was anxiously adopted by theUnited States, as well as by this state; including the right, and causes, of challenge as at common law, in civil and in criminal cases. 1vol. State Laws, App. 55.s. 9. 11. (Dall.edit.)Ibid. 58.s. 25. 3vol. 36.s. 9. 6. 4vol. ActsCong. p. 25.art. 8, 9. 1vol. State Laws, p. 134.s. 4.Dall. edit. 2vol. 802.s. 2. 3vol. 606.s. 16. 2vol. 264.s. 9. 12. 3. 1vol. Acts Cong. 113.s. 30.Ibid. 68.s. 29.2d. That on principle, as well as on authority; alienage was a cause of challenge to a juror before verdict. 3State Laws, Const. art. 8. 1vol. Acts Cong. Const.art. 6.Ibid. 67.s. 29. 1Roll. Abr. 657.Co. Litt. 156.b. 3Bl. Com. 362.Gilb. P.C. 94. 1Dall. Rep. 74. 3d. That if the cause of challenge was unknown when the jury was qualified, it may be used to set aside the verdict, as for a mistrial. 3Dall. Rep. 515. 11Mod. 119. 2Wood. 352.An.Reg. 1790.p. 46. 2Ld. Raym. 1410. 1Stra. 640. 1vol.Acts Cong. 6.s. 17. 2Stra. 1000. 593.E. TilghmanandIngersoll, in opposition to the rule, contended, 1st. That, inPennsylvania, alienage was not a cause of challenge to a juror. But, 2d. That the objection was too late after the juror was sworn, and the verdict was given.
The COURT
After a long advisement upon the subject, seemed to think, that alienage might have been a cause of challenge, before the juror was sworn; but, upon an extensive review of the authorities, they decided, that advantage could not be taken of it, after verdict.

Rule discharged.1
  1. Page 354 Since the discussion of this case, the marshal has been directed not to return aliens upon the panel; and, in many instances, when aliens have been returned, the state, as well as the federal, Courts have discharged them, upon their own application. ↩