Clarke v. Russel involved a dispute over whether two letters from the defendants constituted a written guarantee or undertaking enforceable against them, with the case reaching the Supreme Court on a bill of exceptions. The Court reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial because the trial judge's instruction to the jury—that the letters could be explained by parol testimony—was overly broad and erroneous. The core reasoning was that an undertaking for the duty of another must be wholly in writing to satisfy the statute of frauds, so parol evidence could not be used to add to, vary, or affect the import of the letters. The Court did not reach the question of whether the letters themselves imported a guarantee, though a majority inclined to the view that they did not. A prior exception regarding admission of protested bills of exchange was rejected under existing precedent.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned a dispute over title to Montour’s Island, where William Douglass had acquired a 5000-acre land right under the 1763 royal proclamation for military service, which was assigned to Charles Sims; Sims obtained a Virginia land warrant, located it on the island, and received confirmation of the equitable title through the Virginia-Pennsylvania compact after the territory's transfer. The Circuit Court ruled in favor of Sims in an ejectment action, and the Supreme Court affirmed that judgment. The core reasoning was that Virginia's post-independence laws dispensed with personal application requirements, the compact favorably preserved prior substantial rights despite any formal defects, and a subsequent Pennsylvania survey (with consideration paid) established a legal right of entry sufficient to support ejectment under Pennsylvania law, which federal courts must respect. The Court held that once such a legal right attaches to property, it remains enforceable regardless of changes in jurisdiction or judicial powers.

property