JAMES R. JONES, CHARLES C. JONES, WILLIAM G. GORMAN, ROBERT LOTT, JOHN TIPPIN, MATTHEW T. TIPPIN AND JOHN R. TALLY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. CATHERINE MCMASTERS, BY HER NEXT FRIEND, MANUEL YBARBA (1858)

JAMES R. JONES, CHARLES C. JONES, WILLIAM G. GORMAN, ROBERT LOTT, JOHN TIPPIN, MATTHEW T. TIPPIN AND JOHN R. TALLY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. CATHERINE MCMASTERS, BY HER NEXT FRIEND, MANUEL YBARBA
	Term: 1857
Important Dates
	Argued: December 16, 1857
	Decided: January 11, 1858
Outcome
	Affirmed (includes modified)
Vote
	8-0
Majority
	John Archibald Campbell • John Catron • Peter Vivian Daniel • Robert Cooper Grier • John McLean • Samuel Nelson • Roger Brooke Taney • James Moore Wayne

JAMES R. JONES, CHARLES C. JONES, WILLIAM G. GORMAN, ROBERT LOTT, JOHN TIPPIN, MATTHEW T. TIPPIN AND JOHN R. TALLY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. CATHERINE MCMASTERS, BY HER NEXT FRIEND, MANUEL YBARBA is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on January 11, 1858. The case was argued before the court on December 16, 1857.

In an 8-0 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the lower court. The case originated from the Texas U.S. District Court.

For a full list of cases decided in the 1850s, click here. For a full list of cases decided by the Taney 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: Owner, landlord, or claimant to ownership, fee interest, or possession of land as well as chattels
Respondent state: Unknown
Citation: 61 U.S. 8
How the court took jurisdiction: Writ of error
What type of decision was made: Opinion of the court (orally argued)
Who was the chief justice: Roger Brooke Taney
Who wrote the majority opinion: Samuel Nelson

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.