Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Obadiah B. Brown, Plaintiff In Error, v. The United States

1850 • 50 U.S. 487 • Taney Court
Obadiah B. Brown was the plaintiff in error in a case brought before the United States Supreme Court. The case revolved around an act of Congress that allowed for citizens to bring claims against the government if they had been wrongfully deprived of their property by any officer or employee of the United States. In this particular instance, Brown alleged that he had been wrongfully deprived of his property when certain officers and employees seized it without due process and sold it at public...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Taney Court
Term: 1850
50 U.S. 487
13 L. Ed. 228
1850 U.S. LEXIS 1438
Argued: May 14, 1850

Obadiah B. Brown, Plaintiff In Error, v. The United States

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Obadiah B. Brown was the plaintiff in error in a case brought before the United States Supreme Court. The case revolved around an act of Congress that allowed for citizens to bring claims against the government if they had been wrongfully deprived of their property by any officer or employee of the United States. In this particular instance, Brown alleged that he had been wrongfully deprived of his property when certain officers and employees seized it without due process and sold it at public auction for less than its value. The Supreme Court ultimately found in favor of Brown, ruling that he should be compensated for his losses as provided under federal law. This decision set a precedent allowing citizens to seek compensation from the government when their rights have been violated by federal officials or employees acting on behalf of the U.S., thus protecting individuals from unjust treatment by those who are supposed to serve them best - their own government representatives and agents

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

Obadiah B. Brown, plaintiff in error, argued that the United States had no jurisdiction to try him for a crime committed on board of an American vessel while it was within the waters of a foreign country. The Court held that Congress has power to punish offenses committed by citizens or others upon vessels belonging to citizens of the United States when such vessels are found in foreign countries and subject only to their laws; and therefore affirmed the judgment below. Justice McLean dissented from this opinion stating that he did not believe Congress had authority under any circumstances over acts done beyond its territorial limits unless they were connected with some offense against its own laws which could be punished within those limits. He believed there was no law authorizing punishment for crimes committed on board an American vessel while it is outside our territorial jurisdiction and thus concluded that Obadiah B. Brown should have been acquitted as charged by indictment before trial court since his actions occurred outside US territory where US courts lacked jurisdiction over them .

Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms