Case: OWENS v. HANNEY
Abbreviation: Owens v. Hanney
Decision Date: 1815-03-01
Docket Number: 
Citation: 9 Cranch 180
Volume: 13
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: OWENS v. HANNEY.
Judges: li&seuf....Livingston, J. Story, J. and Todd, J.
Pages: 180–180

Head Matter:
OWENS v. HANNEY.
li&seuf....Livingston, J. Story, J. and Todd, J.
It is not necosFaryMmt the ' • transcript of the record shoulc* cnutftm the names of the jurors. Sembthat if it appear by the record (hat the Plaintiff belo-w was a suiijeet of G Britain, and a war break out between G Britain and the United States, idler rendition of thejudgment b«low, and before affirmance on the writ of error, the Plaintiffin error cannot take ailv;mli»n;o < />f th<- fact that tlv o« iginal Plaintiff is an alioa enemy— but thejudgmi’iii may be •(firmed.
ERROR to the.1 Circuit Court for the district of Georgia, in an action oí assumpsit, upon a special premiso to pay interest upon the amount of a decree in chancery, in consideration of forbearance.
The Plaintiff below is stated in the declaration to he an alien and British subject, and the Deft ndant a citizen of Georgia.
A demurrer to the declaration having been over-ruled, the Defendant pleaded non-assumpsit, upon which issue the verdict and judgment \v> re against him in May, 1811, and he brought his writ of error.
In the transcript of the record, which came up, a blank is left for the names of the jurors, but in other respects the record appears io be perfect. The verdict and judgment are fully stated.
War was declared by the United States against.Great Britain, on the 18th of June, 1812, and continued at the time of the argument in this Court.
Harper, for the Plaintiff in error, contended,
1. That as it appeared upon the record that the Plaintiff was. an alien enemy, and the Defendant had had no opportunity to plead that fact, this Court ought not to affirm the judgment; and,
2. That the omission of the names of the jurors, was fatal in as much as it did not appear from the record that it was the verdict of a legal jury.
March 1st.
Jlbsent....T<ym>, J.

Opinion:
Marshall, Ch. J.
stated the opinion of the Court to be that the'omission of the names of the jurors was not material. Nothing was said upon the first point.
Judgment affirmed with costs.