Incorporation of the USA?

[shikamaru]

The first line would be what the defendant counsel was saying.

The first exception was, 'that, at the time of the offence charged, the United States were not
a body corporate known in law.'

The Second line is what the court was saying.

But the Court are of a different opinion. From the moment of their association, the United States necessarily became a body corporate; for, there was no superior from whom that character could otherwise be derived. In England, the king, lords, and commons, are certainly a body corporate; and yet there never was any charter or statute, by which they were expressly so created.

It would seem that the court is disagreeing with the lawyer, who is claiming they were not a body corp and the court is saying they disagree and that indeed from their first association, they were.

Am I reading this wrong?

You are absolutely correct, sir.

Did you ever wonder where the terms body corporate and body politic originate?