American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton

Last updated
American Insurance Company v. 356 Bales of Cotton
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 8,10–11, 1828
Decided March 15, 1828
Full case nameThe American Insurance Company, and The Ocean Insurance Company, (of New-York,) v. 356 Bales of Cotton, David Canter
Citations26 U.S. 511 ( more )
1 Pet. 511; 7 L. Ed. 242; 1828 WL 2951 (U.S.S.C.)
Case history
PriorFrom the Circuit Court of the United States, District of South Carolina
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Marshall
Associate Justices
Bushrod Washington  · William Johnson
Gabriel Duvall  · Joseph Story
Smith Thompson  · Robert Trimble
Case opinion
MajorityMarshall, joined by unanimous

American Insurance Company v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 511 (1828), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The case involved the validity of a local court established by Congress in the Florida Territory whose judges lacked life tenure, as mandated by Article III of the Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall upheld the courts on the basis of Congress's broad power to enact local laws for territories under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution. [1] The case was later discussed in Dred Scott v. Sandford , where Chief Justice Roger Taney distinguished it in holding that Congress could not ban slavery within a territory.

Related Research Articles

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831), was a United States Supreme Court case. The Cherokee Nation sought a federal injunction against laws passed by the U.S. state of Georgia depriving them of rights within its boundaries, but the Supreme Court did not hear the case on its merits. It ruled that it had no original jurisdiction in the matter, as the Cherokees were a dependent nation, with a relationship to the United States like that of a "ward to its guardian," as said by Chief Justice Marshall.

Federal tribunals in the United States are those tribunals established by the federal government of the United States for the purpose of resolving disputes involving or arising under federal laws, including questions about the constitutionality of such laws. Such tribunals include both Article III tribunals as well as adjudicative entities which are classified as Article I or Article IV tribunals. Some of the latter entities are also formally denominated as courts, but they do not enjoy certain protections afforded to Article III courts. These tribunals are described in reference to the article of the United States Constitution from which the tribunal's authority stems. The use of the term "tribunal" in this context as a blanket term to encompass both courts and other adjudicative entities comes from section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, which expressly grants Congress the power to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Canton Railroad Company v. Rogan, 340 U.S. 511 (1951), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a state franchise tax upon the services performed by a railroad in handling imported and exported goods did not violate the Import-Export Clause of the United States Constitution.

The Florida Territorial Court of Appeals was a court system during the time of the Florida Territory. Samuel J. Douglas served on it.

References

  1. ↑ "Property and Territory: Powers of Congress". Justia.com.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.