Volume 10 — United States Reports

The ground upon which the petitioner claimed his freedom was, that he had been imported into the state of Maryland contrary to the act of assembly of that state, passed in the year, 1783, entitled,An act to prohibit the bringing of' slaves into this state;” by which it is enacted, “ That; it shall not be lawful, after the passing this act, to import or bring into this state, by land or water, any negro, mulatto oi other slave, for.sale, or tq reside within this state; and…

a chancery suit, in which Field,' Hunt, ’Eajd°r and Robeson, were complainants, and Holland, Melton, Tigner, Smith, Cox and Dougherty, were defendants, ^he decree of the court below dismissed' the bill as to all the defendants.

covenant, upon two policies. of insurance, one upon the Schooner William & Mary, Travers, master, and the other upon her cargo, “from Baltimore to Laguirá, with liberty of one other neighbouring port, and at. arid from them* or either of them, back to Baltimore.” The policy contained the following clause : “ Confessing ourselves paid the consideration due unto us for the assurance of. the said assured, or his assigns, after the rate of seven and one half per cent, on cargo,…

THIS was an appeal from an interlocutory decree of the circuit court of the district of Columbia, dissolving an injunction. ■

WILSON petitioned the , court for a writ of haheas corpus, and a certiorari to bring up the record of a civil cause in which judgment' had been rendered against him, upon which ara. sa. had. issued, hy which he was taken and was now in confinement within the prisons bounds upon a prison-bounds bond, His petition stated that the marshal had demanded of the creditor the daily allowance for the prisoner agreeably to the act of congress, concerning insolvent debtors within the…

O'Neale v. Thornton, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 53 (1810), is a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that neither the state of Maryland nor the government of the District of Columbia authorized the resale of foreclosed government land at a price less than the original sale price. In establishing the District of Columbia, the D.C. government had sold land to original investors at $66.50 per lot. The investors failed to pay, so the government foreclosed and resold the land to a second investor at the same price. The second investor failed to pay, so the government foreclosed again and sold the land to a third investor at a price lower than the original sale price. This third sale, the Supreme Court said, was illegal.

Philadelphia, to the Isle of France. ' The vessel sailed early in December, 180/, before the British orders in council of the preceding No^ vember were known in the United States.

current money of Virginia, on or before the 1st of January, 1785, then the obligation t0 be void.

Nothing having been said respecting the costs, the court below had . not issued execution- for the costs of the appellant.

Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87 (1810), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in which the Supreme Court first ruled a state law unconstitutional. The decision created a growing precedent for the sanctity of legal contracts and hinted that Native Americans did not hold complete title to their own lands (an idea fully realized in Johnson v. McIntosh).

<p>The practice in Kentucky to call a jury to ascertain the facts in chancery causesis incorrect.</p> <p>A suit in chancery buy one who has the prior equity against him who has the eldest patent is in its nature loacl, and if it be a mere question of title, must be tried in the districct where the land lies.</p> <p>But if it be a case of contract, or trust, or fraud, it is to be tried in the district where the defendant may be found.</p> <p>If, by any reasonable construction of an entry, it can be supported, the court will support it.</p> <p>When given quantity of land is to be laid off on a given base, it shall be included within four lines forming a square, as nearly as may be, unless the form be repugnant to the entry.</p> <p>lithe calls of an entfy do cribe'tSe land, but furnish abiTthe* court complete application of certain ^m “'com’ it. p e e</p> <p>If a location have certain materila calls sufficient to support it, and to descrive the land, other calls less material and incompatible with the essential calls of the entry, may be discarded.</p> <p>The rectangular figure is to be preserved, if possible.</p> <p>locate land for himself which locate^for hit Pr,.nc'Pal>. he trustee lor hb principal,</p>

the. United States, “ the dangers of 4ke seas only excepted.” The vessel on board of which the goods were laden, cleared out and sailed from Philadelphia, for East Portland, in the district of Maine, but, having encountered sávere and tempestuous weather^ her crew disabled in a great degree, she was obliged, in order to escape from the danger of Nantucket Shoals, to change her course, and to endeavour to gain the port of Charleston. .

THIS .was an appeal from-a decree of the circuit' court for the. district of Virginia, dismissing the bill of the complainant.. ' case was stated by Washington, J. in deliver- . ■; J c n • ' íqg me opinion pi this court, as. lollows: .‘‘The.pbjectof the hill.was,to rescind a contract macle between .the appellant and Robert Gordon, the appellee,;.for the sale of a tract, of land by the latter' to the. former, upon-thp ground óf.a defect of .title.

ERROR-to the circuit court for the district of Golumbia, sitting'at-Alexandria; in an action of debt upon a judgment and devastavit, brought By JVTKnight against Craig, as executor of Mitchell. , After an office judgment by default against Craig, . , J ° , . ,, ° i . and a ,writ or inquiry avyarded m November,. 1807, . at the rules, Craig died. At the July term, Í 808, his • death was suggested,and a scire jactas awarded against I. G. Ladd, his administrator.

deputy in not sérving a ^pbena in chancery, cqmmoñly called a chancery attachmenr, in.due time, whereby the plaintiff lost his debt, The. declaration stated that one Johnston, who did not reside in the district of Columbia, was indebted to the piajnC¡ff a resident of Alexandria in that district, and that one Hampson wag indebted to Johnston ; that ™ or The defendant pleaded not guilty, and a verdict, by consent, was rendered for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the…

Held: being there represented, shall have-power and authority to proceed and act in all matters and things in the first red ted act mentioned, in as full, absolute, and unlimited a manner as they, might or could, do if all and every of the said, subscribers were actually present and attending, at any such meeting.” By an act"1 passed the 12th of January, 1799, it is enacted, “ That the said mutual insurance society shall…

THIS case differed from the case of Korn & Wisemiller v. The Mutual Assurance Society ; that being for a half quota, and this for the additional premium upon a revaluation, under the 7th section of the act of 1805. (See Virginia Laws, v. 2. App. 81.) The question (which was submitted without argument) was, whether the additional premium should be charged.on the whole sum at which the buildings were revalued, or only on. the excess between the old and new valuation.

THIS, was an appeal from the sentence of the district court of. the United States for the district of New-Orleans,which dismissed the libel. The ship Helen, a vessel of the United States, during the existence of the act of congress of the 28'h pi February, 1806,, “40 suspend |he commercial inter-, course between the United States and certain po.rts of the island of Sf. Domingo, had traded with one of the prohibited ports, contrary to that act.

Stewart, the endorsee of a promissory note, brought his action of debt, under the statute of Virginia, against Anderson, the maker. The note was paade payable to W. Hodgson, and by him assigned to Stewart. It was dated the 25th of April, 1807, and payable 18© days after date, for'330 dollars and 56 cents. ' r ’ The defendant pleaded, 1.

Co1 lnmk:„ U-imDia* former judgment of the court below in’ this cause, in favour of the now plaintiffs in error,' having been* reversed in this court, and the cause sent back for the trial of’ th'e issues o( fact,* the plaintiffs in error,, before the cause could be regularly called for trialaccording to the rules and practice of the court, moved the court below' for' Ieavé 'to amend the pleadings by adding' to the former, .eight pleas, a ninth and a tenth plea, in the words…

17s. 9d. sterling, payable to Slacum or order, who endorsed Alexandria, in the district of Columbia, to the plaintiff.

. qqle declaration had tw.o counts; firsL a special count, charging the .defendant Smith, who was a¡ supercargo, w¡fo breach of orders; second, trover.

Custiss for a turnpike road. The inquisition was taken under the 7th section of the act of congress of the 3d of March, 1809,,'*to authorize the making of a turnpike road from|Matson’s causey to Alexandria,” voL 9. f. 276. which provides, that it shall be lawful for the president and directors of the turnpike company to aeree with the owners of any ground to be occupied by the .roac tad the neeessary toll-houses and gates, for the right thereof; and, in case of disagreement,…

EJECTMENT by Lodge against Lee, for part of an island in the Potomac river, called Eden, but now generally called Lee’s island. The plaintiff’s lessor had taken' up the land in the year 1804, as vacant, supposing that the defendant’s claim must be bounded by the course and distance, allowing one degree or variation for every 20 years since the certificate of survey was made under which the defendant claims.

The bill Stated that on the 2/th of February, 1804, the plaintiff and defendant entered into articles of co-partnership, by which the stock to be furnished by the plaintiff was to consist of one half of the ship United States and 5,000 dollars; and by the defendant, his gold and silver manufactory, two lots in the city of Washington, all his stock of merchandise, and the rents of two houses..

The condition of the,mortgage was, that if the defendant, Bacon, should pay to the complainant the interest of eight per cent, upon one thousand dollars of eight percent, stock of the United States, loaned by the complainant to the defendant, and should further pay to the complainant “ the said sum of one thousand dollars,” &c. the deed should be void. The defendant, Bacon, pleaded the statute of usury, alleging that it was a loan of money and not of stock.

of imunpsit brought by Sheehy against Joseph-Mandeville and It. B. Jamesson. The declaration consisted of three counts.

•THIS was a case certified from the circuit court for the district of Kentucky, the judges of that court being divided in opinion. ° The former decree of the court below had been reversed in this court, and the cause M remanded for further proceedings to be had therein, in order that an equal and just partition of the 2.,500 'acres of land, mentioned in the assignment of the 6th of March,-1785, be made between the legal representatives of the said George Skillern and the…

'ERROR to the circuit court of the district pf Maryland, in an action oí covenant upon a policy of insurance uPon goods on board the ship Minerva, from Philadelphia to Laguira, and back to Philadelphia. i . . r , . „ I he cause was tried upon the issue of non mfregit conventionem, and the jury found a special verdict, Stating the following facts : On the 5th of March* 1807, Christian Dannenberg, as agent of the plaintiff,' who was a citizen of Pcnnsylvania’ shipped for…

to be American property, '■'■proof of which to be required in the United States only.” 1 he ship and cargo were; captured by a British ship of war, and condemned at. Halifax as prize. The defence set up by the underwriters was, 1. That one Baruro, a Spanish subject, was interested in the cargo, and that Baruro being a subject,of one of the belligerents, the warranty of neutrality was forfeited. 2.

the brig Sea Flower, which had been captured by the French, for trading to the revolted ports of the island of Hispaniola, contrary to the ordinances of France, and carried into the Spanish port of Baracop, but condemned by a.French tribunal at Guadaloupe, and sold for the benefit of the captors, and purchased by the defendant Guesfier. . ~ ■ ,• r . .

Held: to the state’s agent, and claimed the composition held out by law bn the. said information.

This was a suit brought by the United States Durousseau and others upon a bond, given in pursuance of the act of congress of December 22, 1807, usually called the embargo act.

Tyler v. Tuel, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 324 (1810), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that an assignee of a geographically limited patent right could not bring an action in the assignee's own name. It was the first published Supreme Court decision on patent law. Like other Supreme Court patent cases prior to Evans v. Eaton, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 454 (1818), however, it did not deal with substantive patent law, but only with the law of patent assignment.

THESE were appeals from the sentence of fthe circuit court for the district of Mar) land, affirming the sentence of the district court, which condemned the schooner Juliana, and the ship Alligator and cargo, for a supposed violation of thp 3d section of the act of congress of the 9th of January, 1808, entitled “ An act supplementary to the act, entitled an act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in- the ports and harbours of the United States,” by putting goods from…

THIS. was an appeal from the sentence of the district- court of the United States for the district °f Orleans, which condemned the schooner Rachel for having traded with certain prohibited ports of St. Do- * . , ,- mingo, contrary to the act ot congress. The sentence of condemnation was passed, and the vessel sold, and the proceeds paid over to the United States, while the act was in force. The act had.since expired.

United States, ^or die district of Orleans, ’ to reverse the sentence of. that, court which condemned the brigantine Lucy, for importing a slave from the West Indies, contrary to act of congress of the 28ih of February, 1803,W. 6, p. 212. entitled “ An act to prevent the importation certa*n persons into certain states, where, by, the laws thereof their admission is prohibitedby the fij-st sect'on of which it is enacted, that no master of a vessel, “or any other person,…

ERROR .to the district court of .the United States for the district of Orleans, in a suit in equity, in which Seré- Lar aide were complainants, against Pitot and others, defendants.

There was no warranty as. to the .character of the property. ' Upon the trial below the plaintiffs in error took three bills of exception; and the verdict and judgment being agdinst them, they brought their writ of error. The cause was .argued by Winder and Martin, for the plaintiff's in error, and by Harper, for the defendant. .