COLIN MITCHEL, ROBERT MITCHEL, IN HIS OWN RIGHT, AND AS ASSIGNEE OF THE ESTATE AND EFFECTS OF THE MERCANTILE HOUSE HERETOFORE TRADING UNDER THE FIRM OF CARNOCHAN AND MITCHEL, AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE CREDITORS OF SAID FIRM, AND ALSO OF RICHARD CA (1835)

COLIN MITCHEL, ROBERT MITCHEL, IN HIS OWN RIGHT, AND AS ASSIGNEE OF THE ESTATE AND EFFECTS OF THE MERCANTILE HOUSE HERETOFORE TRADING UNDER THE FIRM OF CARNOCHAN AND MITCHEL, AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE CREDITORS OF SAID FIRM, AND ALSO OF RICHARD CA
	Term: 1835
Important Dates
	Argued: January 26, 1832
	Decided: March 17, 1835
Outcome
	Reversed
Vote
	6-0
Majority
	Henry Baldwin • John Marshall • John McLean • Joseph Story • Smith Thompson • James Moore Wayne

COLIN MITCHEL, ROBERT MITCHEL, IN HIS OWN RIGHT, AND AS ASSIGNEE OF THE ESTATE AND EFFECTS OF THE MERCANTILE HOUSE HERETOFORE TRADING UNDER THE FIRM OF CARNOCHAN AND MITCHEL, AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE CREDITORS OF SAID FIRM, AND ALSO OF RICHARD CA is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on March 17, 1835. The case was argued before the court on January 26, 1832.

In a 6-0 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the lower court. The case originated from the Florida Territorial Trial Court.

For a full list of cases decided in the 1830s, click here. For a full list of cases decided by the Marshall Court, click here.

^[1]

About the case

Subject matter: Economic Activity - state and territorial land claims
Petitioner: Owner, landlord, or claimant to ownership, fee interest, or possession of land as well as chattels
Petitioner state: Unknown
Respondent type: United States
Respondent state: Unknown
Citation: 34 U.S. 711
How the court took jurisdiction: Appeal
What type of decision was made: Opinion of the court (orally argued)
Who was the chief justice: John Marshall
Who wrote the majority opinion: Henry Baldwin

These data points were accessed from The Supreme Court Database, which also attempts to categorize the ideological direction of the court's ruling in each case. This case's ruling was categorized as liberal.