38:
290:, drawn from a pool of merchants informed on matters of law relevant to the case. Their relation to the court, then, was different from that of a typical fact-finding jury. Shelfer concludes that the instructions were neither anomalous nor an endorsement of jury nullification but rather reflected the immaturity of American merchant law and the reliance of courts on experts.
259:. Jay noted it as a "good old rule" that juries should judge questions of fact while deferring to the court on questions of law; yet he observed that the jury could, if it chose, judge both to arrive at a decision. As mentioned, the jury neither challenged the Court's conclusions of law nor needed to examine the facts, which the parties had agreed upon.
222:
between the United States and Great
Britain asserted the validity of debts held by creditors on both sides. Samuel Brailsford, a British subject and holder of such a debt, attempted to recover from Georgia resident James Spalding. The case was filed directly in the United States Supreme Court, rather
451:
335:
274:
commented on the apparent inconsistency of Jay's recorded instructions, going so far as to suggest that the record was inaccurate and, in any case, not in line with recent
English or American law.
527:
415:
443:
327:
79:
247:
The Court concluded that the sequestration law did not transfer the debt interest to the state. After being advised of that opinion, the jury found for the defendants.
522:
227:. Georgia intervened in the Supreme Court, claiming that the debt was owed instead to the state. Brailsford was joined by Messrs. Hopton and Powell, residents of
512:
370:
517:
299:
17:
187:
42:
86:
131:
532:
108:
Sequestration of debts by states during the
American Revolution did not permanently vest those debts in the states.
155:
280:(1895) repeated Curtis's doubts and found that federal courts had no obligation to give similar instructions.
255:
Chief
Justice Jay's instructions to the jury have attracted much interest surrounding their implications for
271:
485:
410:
356:
276:
219:
399:
447:
419:
331:
224:
71:
215:
467:
283:
199:
191:
256:
286:
fellow
Lochlan F. Shelfer has examined the case record in depth. He notes that the jury was a
361:
195:
139:
228:
143:
422:
506:
151:
458:
476:
339:
287:
232:
203:
94:
74:
123:
90:
218:
passed a law that sequestered debts owed to
British creditors. The
494:
236:
231:, who were partners in the debt. Because the Court was trying a
37:
202:
could be recovered by bondholders. It is the only reported
223:
than in a lower court, under its constitutionally defined
262:
Subsequent jurisprudence has tended to discount the
168:
163:
112:
102:
66:
56:
49:
30:
528:United States Supreme Court cases of the Jay Court
61:State of Georgia v. Samuel Brailsford & others
350:
348:
214:During the American Revolution, the state of
8:
186:, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 1 (1794), was an early
27:
390:
388:
319:
317:
315:
311:
300:Jury nullification in the United States
18:Georgia v. Brailsford (disambiguation)
523:Legal history of Georgia (U.S. state)
454:) 1 (1794) is available from:
357:"Special Juries in the Supreme Court"
206:in the history of the Supreme Court.
25:1794 United States Supreme Court case
7:
355:Shelfer, Lochlan F. (October 2013).
16:For other rulings in this case, see
396:Special Juries in the Supreme Court
373:from the original on June 30, 2017
43:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
513:United States Supreme Court cases
36:
518:1794 in United States case law
1:
398:, 123 Yale. L.J. 208 (2013).
188:United States Supreme Court
549:
15:
117:
107:
50:Argued February 4–7, 1794
35:
235:dispute, it impaneled a
190:case holding that debts
52:Decided February 7, 1794
272:Benjamin Robbins Curtis
268:United States v. Morris
411:Sparf v. United States
277:Sparf v. United States
440:Georgia v. Brailsford
324:Georgia v. Brailsford
225:original jurisdiction
198:by states during the
183:Georgia v. Brailsford
31:Georgia v. Brailsford
394:Lochlan F. Shelfer,
486:Library of Congress
284:Stanford Law School
200:American Revolution
533:Jury nullification
257:jury nullification
128:Associate Justices
266:court's view. In
194:but not declared
179:
178:
540:
499:
493:
490:
484:
481:
475:
472:
466:
463:
457:
426:
407:
401:
392:
383:
382:
380:
378:
362:Yale Law Journal
352:
343:
321:
270:(1851), Justice
156:William Paterson
113:Court membership
40:
39:
28:
548:
547:
543:
542:
541:
539:
538:
537:
503:
502:
497:
491:
488:
482:
479:
473:
470:
464:
461:
455:
435:
430:
429:
408:
404:
393:
386:
376:
374:
354:
353:
346:
322:
313:
308:
296:
253:
251:Power of juries
245:
220:Treaty of Paris
212:
172:Jay, joined by
154:
142:
140:William Cushing
98:
51:
45:
26:
21:
12:
11:
5:
546:
544:
536:
535:
530:
525:
520:
515:
505:
504:
501:
500:
468:Google Scholar
434:
433:External links
431:
428:
427:
402:
384:
369:(1): 208–252.
344:
310:
309:
307:
304:
303:
302:
295:
292:
252:
249:
244:
241:
239:for the case.
229:South Carolina
211:
208:
177:
176:
170:
166:
165:
161:
160:
159:
158:
144:John Blair Jr.
129:
126:
121:
115:
114:
110:
109:
105:
104:
100:
99:
84:
68:
64:
63:
58:
57:Full case name
54:
53:
47:
46:
41:
33:
32:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
545:
534:
531:
529:
526:
524:
521:
519:
516:
514:
511:
510:
508:
496:
487:
478:
469:
460:
453:
449:
445:
441:
437:
436:
432:
424:
421:
417:
413:
412:
406:
403:
400:
397:
391:
389:
385:
372:
368:
364:
363:
358:
351:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
320:
318:
316:
312:
305:
301:
298:
297:
293:
291:
289:
285:
281:
279:
278:
273:
269:
265:
260:
258:
250:
248:
242:
240:
238:
234:
230:
226:
221:
217:
209:
207:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
185:
184:
175:
171:
167:
162:
157:
153:
152:James Iredell
149:
145:
141:
137:
133:
130:
127:
125:
122:
120:Chief Justice
119:
118:
116:
111:
106:
101:
96:
92:
88:
82:
81:
76:
73:
69:
65:
62:
59:
55:
48:
44:
34:
29:
23:
19:
439:
425: (1895).
409:
405:
395:
375:. Retrieved
366:
360:
342: (1794).
323:
288:special jury
282:
275:
267:
263:
261:
254:
246:
213:
182:
181:
180:
173:
164:Case opinion
147:
135:
132:James Wilson
78:
60:
22:
192:sequestered
507:Categories
495:OpenJurist
377:October 2,
306:References
264:Brailsford
233:common law
210:Background
204:jury trial
95:U.S. LEXIS
93:483; 1794
174:unanimous
67:Citations
438:Text of
371:Archived
294:See also
243:Decision
169:Majority
124:John Jay
459:Cornell
216:Georgia
196:forfeit
103:Holding
498:
492:
489:
483:
480:
477:Justia
474:
471:
465:
462:
456:
414:,
338:)
150:
148:·
146:
138:
136:·
134:
91:L. Ed.
452:Dall.
446:
418:
336:Dall.
330:
89:1; 1
87:Dall.
448:U.S.
420:U.S.
379:2018
332:U.S.
237:jury
80:more
72:U.S.
450:(3
416:156
367:123
334:(3
97:102
509::
442:,
423:51
387:^
365:.
359:.
347:^
326:,
314:^
85:3
70:3
444:3
381:.
340:1
328:3
83:)
77:(
75:1
20:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.