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

The United States, Plaintiffs In Error Vs. Thomas Tingey, Defendant In Error

1831 • 30 U.S. 115 • Marshall Court
The United States brought a case against Thomas Tingey, who was accused of trespass on public land. The government argued that the defendant had unlawfully occupied and improved certain lands in the District of Columbia which were owned by the United States. In response to this claim, Tingey asserted that he had purchased these lands from an individual who held title to them prior to their being declared as public property. He also claimed that he had made improvements on these lands with full...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 Marshall Court
Term: 1831
30 U.S. 115
8 L. Ed. 66
1831 U.S. LEXIS 341
Argued: Jan 18, 1831

The United States, Plaintiffs In Error Vs. Thomas Tingey, Defendant In Error

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

The United States brought a case against Thomas Tingey, who was accused of trespass on public land. The government argued that the defendant had unlawfully occupied and improved certain lands in the District of Columbia which were owned by the United States. In response to this claim, Tingey asserted that he had purchased these lands from an individual who held title to them prior to their being declared as public property. He also claimed that he had made improvements on these lands with full knowledge and consent of the previous owner. After considering both sides’ arguments, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tingey; they found him not guilty due to his good faith belief that he was purchasing validly-held private property when making his purchase from its former owner. As such, it was determined that no trespass or other wrongs had been committed by either party involved in this dispute over ownership rights for these particular pieces of land located within Washington D.C..

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of The United States, Plaintiffs in Error vs. Thomas Tingey, Defendant in Error, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion. He argued that the court should not have dismissed the appeal because it was brought by an officer of the government and therefore had standing to bring suit against another individual for damages caused by negligence or misconduct. Furthermore, he argued that even if there were no statutory authority for such a suit at common law, Congress could still grant such power as part of its constitutional powers over interstate commerce and foreign relations. In conclusion, Chief Justice Marshall believed that since this was an action between two individuals with one being an agent of the government who sought redress from another individual due to their actions causing damage to property owned by said agent's employer (the US Government), then it should be allowed under both common law and Congressional authority granted through its Constitutional powers over interstate commerce and foreign relations.

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