Volume 13 — Johnson's New York Reports

THIS was an appeal from the court of chancery. John Bradwell, the intestate, a native- of England, residing at Flushing, in Queen’s county, Long Island, died, in August, 1812, intestate, without issue, leaving a widow, and a clear personal estate, after payment of all debts, &c., of 6,219 dollars and 51 cents.

IN ERROR, from, the court. These were actions of assumpsit, in both of which the pleadings were similar, and which were argued together in this court, The declarations, in both cases, wére for goods… Held: and a transfer of the Míe being supposed to create a complication of the ttust, making thereby a complication of a trust depend, not on a diversity of interest, but.a change of parties. 9.

<p>An award, of payment of a specific sum, by one party to the otjher, is final, and sufficient without a release.</p> <p>Where an unpire awarded that the defend-, ant should pay to the plaintiff* certain sum, with interest until paid, “as the. plaintiff appeared to have a just claim on the defendant for that aura, or even more, if insisted on;”and, “that should any errors in addition or calculation of in tei'eet be found in the account, upon proof thereof being made by the defendant to the plaintiff, the plaintiff should immediately refund to the defendant the amount thereof,” the award was held final and valid.</p> <p>Where an umpire was chosen and appointed, of and concerning Vie premises, and it was stated that he took upon himself the burden of the umpirage, it is to be intended that he awarded concerning the subject matter submitted.</p>

THIS was an action of trespass on the case, which was tried at the Ontario circuit, in June, 1814, before Mr. J. VanNess, and a verdict taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court. The declaration contained four counts, in the three first of , which, the plaintiff alleged an injury to his reversion in 100 .acres of land, in lot No. S3., in township No. H., in the town of Phelps, by digging; and carrying away gypsum: the fourth was a count in trover.

THIS was an action of debt’ on bond, and came before the courj on a general demurrer to the second count in the plaintiffs’ declaration.

THIS was an action of ássumpsfy, brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, as endorser of a promissory note, dated the 8th of May, 1812, drawn by Matthias William Ward, for, 750 dollars, payable to the defendant, ten days after date, The cause Was tried at the New-York sittings, in April, 1814, before Mr*. J. Yates* , .

THIS was a motion in arrest of judgment in an • action of sender, in which a verdict was given for the plaintiff. ' The declaration- contained two-counts- y the first count stated that the defendant, in a certain discourse which he had of and concerning, the trial- of a certain cause between David Mmn and John Wilson, then lately had, before Samuel Barnard, Ésq. a justice of the peace, in and for the County of Sullivan, and of- and, concerning the testimony of the plaintiff,…

‘THIS was an action of covenant, on the covenants contained in a deed of bargain ■ and sale, and was tried at the ColumUa-ciitmi, iü'1814yb,efore'Mr. J,-Van Ness. The deed, on the covenants in which thé action was brought, was executed on the 1st of March? 1799, by the testator to the plaintiff, and contained the usual full eovenants. On the 1st of.

THIS was án action of assumpsit by the endorsee against the endorser of a promissory note;; the cause, was tried at the Mont* gomery circuit, irj 1815,. before Mr. J. Yates. • The note was for 343 dollars and 25 cents, and was 'dráwn by one Edward Williams, j.un., .in favour of the' defendant and ■John Yerdan, and by them endorsed to the plaintiff.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, which was tried at the Alba-circuit, in October; 1815, before Mr. J. Yates.

THIS was an action, of assumpsit on three promissory notes, ‘ ■ i j. ? ma¿e by the defendant in- favour of the plaintiff, dated Jzme 1st,. 1803,. one ¿payable 11 months .after date for 10,000 dollars, one payable 23 months after.-date for 5,000 dollars, and the other 3-5 months after date for 7,549 dollars-and 7 cents.

THIS was an action oí assumpsit, which was fried at the Tioga circuit in dime, 18.15, before Mr., J, Yates.- The plaintiffs declared on an agreement or promissory note, made by the' defendant; to pay the plaintiffs 270 dollars, in drawing piaster', at 4 dollars and 50 cents per ton, from Quiggs-j in Ithaca, to Oviégp-, and also for goods sold and delivered: • The execution of the note having been admitted, the .defendant, at the trial, offered to prove, that he had been to…

THIS was an. action of assumpsit,, brought to recover money paid by the plaintiff, as. surety for the defendant. The cause was. tried- at the .New York sittingsy in May, 1815, before his honour the chief justice. The defendant entered into a contract with the royal administration oí tobacco, at Lbtbccbs, tor the purchase and exportation °f a i-arge qwa-nti:ty (1,500- quintals)- of tobacco,; -which was an Article of royal monopoly, and could only _bé purchased from.

THIS was a writ of error to the court of common pleas of Seneca county. ;The declaration was for slander, and contained six counts. . ■' The first count stated, that a prosecution had beeh depending before a court of three justices of the peace of the county of Se.7ie.ta, legally constituted, agreeably to the act entitled, an act concerning apprentices,and servants, passed 20th of February., 1801, to hear and determine a certain cause between the people, of the state oí…

' AT the court of general sessions of the peace, for the county >of Washington, 1-Icrri.ck was brought to trial for grand larceny. The charge ih the indictment was for stealing the property of Roswell Granger, consisting of pillowcases, shirts,, table-cloths, handkerchiefs, &c. The evidence against the prisoner was, that one pillowcase and one handkerchief were foqnpl in his possession.

ERROR, on a certiorari to a justice’s court. Minturn brought a suit against Northrop, on a promissory note given by Northrop to Minturn, for 25 dollars. The defence was, that the note was given for a gaming debt.

ON the 14th of May last, at the court of general sessions of the peace, of Genesee county, Henry Markham was indicted for an assault and battery, and having pleaded not guilty, and the . , i? ° 7 ° •' trial being brought on by the attorney of the district, Markham?s counsel objected to the trial proceeding, on the ground that a private suit had been brought against him, in the court of common pleas, to recover damages for the same assault and battery, which suit was still…

THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiff, as Second endorsee, against the defendant, as second endorser of a promissory note, drawn by Charles Lindsey, for 700 dollars, payable to one Jackson, or order. The cause jvas tried at the Orange circuit, in September, 1815, before his honour the chief justice.

IN ERROR, fromthe court of common pleas of the county 0f Columbia.■ The defendant in error brought an action of in the court below, for 50 dollars, had and received-by th.e ‘plaintiff in error, to his use, whereby an action had accrued tQ him, to have.and demand the said Sum,? “ according to the form, andas is provided in the second and third sections of an act of the state oi-New-York, entitled an act to prevent excessive and deceitful gaming.” At the trial, the counsel,…

THE defendant was indicted, at-the general sessions of the Peace °f Oneida county, for stealing bank notes.' The in-, dictment stated, “ for that, (the defendant,}, with force and arms, ab & Other larcenies of bank notes were also charged, in another count in the indictment, which it is unnecessary to state. The defendant was tried, and convicted, on the indictment.

IN ERROR, from the court of common pleas of the county of Madison. The plaintiff’s declaration was in assumpsit, and contained two counts.

, THIS was an action of ejectment for lots No. 2. 7. 12. 17. 22. 26, 27, and half of No. 21, in the subdivision of lot No. 20, in the great lot No. % in the Hardenburgh patent, situate in the town of Liberty, in the county of Sullivan, and in which the parlies agreed on a case for the decision of the court..

<p>THIS was an action of covenant. The declaration stated, • that on the 30th of March, 1804, the defendant and his wife executed a certain deed, by which, for the consideration of 4,626 dollars, they conveyed certain premises to the plaintiff, in fee; and the defendant, among other things, covenanted, “ that the said Joseph Hall, his heirs and assigns, should, and might, at all times thereafter, peaceably and quietly have, hold, occupy, 1*1*1 ■* • i i n and enioy the above-granted premises, and every part thereof, and the appurtenances, without any let, suit, trouble, molestation, eviction, or disturbance of the said Daniel S. Dean, his , . . - , , , ,, , . . heirs or assigns, or or any other person, lawfully claiming or to claim by, from, or under him, or any of them, and that free, clear, discharged, and unincumbered from all former and other tibes, charges, estates, and incumbrances of what nature or kind soever had, made, committed, done, or suffered by the said Daniel, his heirs or assigns, or by any other person or persons whomsoever, any thing having or claiming in the premises,”</p> <p>The plaintiff then averred, that John Murray and Edward Payer, executors of Jacob Watson, obtained a judgment in the supreme court against the defendant for 10,300 dollars debt, and 28 dollars and 55 cents damages, which was docketed, prior to the execution of the deed, on the 23d of February, 1804, which judgement remained and continued in-full force and virtue, and was a valid existing incumbrance on the premises, until on the 5th of May, 1804, when the plaintiff was forced to pay, and did pay, the sum of 3,700 dollars, for, towards, and in satisfaction of, the said</p> <p>To this declaration there was a general demurrer and joinder in demurrer. The cause was submitted to the court without argument.</p>

THIS was an action of ejectment, for land, in the town of Cornwall, , m the county of Orange, and was tried before the elilef justice, at the -Orange circuit,'in September, 1815, The plaintiff, at the trial, produced a deed for the premises in question, from Silas Aldrich, the defendant, to Harry Garrison, dated May 10th, 1802,. and -a deed from.

THIS was a motion in arrest of judgment. The declaration # 4 . . was *n assu^psit, and contained six counts, on a special agree. ment.

THIS was an. action of ejectment,Yorpart of lot No. 2»,. in the? seventeenth allotment of the Kayaderoiseras patent. ■ In a par» tit-ion of the patent, lot -No. 2.. fell to the share of the lessors of the , plaintiff, Daniel Campbell and John Beekman, who were seised ‘ thereof, as tenants in common, until the year 1:793, when a par» tition -was, made, and that'part of the- lot No, 2i, which included the' premises in question,-fell to the share of the lessor-of thepictlinm.

<p>THIS was an action of ejectment, brought to recover part of lot ]Sfo, i in the patent granted-to Frederick -Young and' others, in; the town of Cherry Valley,' in Otsego county, . The cause was. toied before Mrs. J:.'Spencer, at the Otsego"circuit;- '</p> <p>Both parties claimed under Theobald Young, w;ho, on the 13th June, IT 7 1, granted the premises in-question to Frederick Young:; under this .conveyance, and as representatives of- Frederick Young, it appeared that the plaintiff’s lessors sought to -recover, It was proved that,, about twenty-five-years before the trial, John D. Young, son of Theobald Young, claimed the premises in " ' <Ju®stlon as ais °wn, and gave, by parol, part of it, being 100 acres, to his sister Caty, the wife of Jacob Garlock. Garlock and wife-went into possession one or two years after, and lived on the lot until about 12 years ago, when they sold and conveyed it to one Walradt, since dead, to whom the defendant, Bilis, was tenant. The conveyance from Garlock to Walradt was dated-the 7th of March, 1800, and, on the 11th of March, 1800, John D. Young and wife conveyed the same premises to Garlock.</p> <p>Evidence was given of the attainder of the ancestors of the plaintiff’s lessors, for adhering to the enemies-of the state during the revolution : but which it is unnecessary to state, as the decision of the court turned altogether on the question of adverse possession.</p> <p>A verdict was found for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court, on a case to be made, with liberty to either' party to turn it into a special verdict.</p>

THIS was an action of debt, for the escape of one Amos Hubble, a prisoner in execution, brought against the defendant, the late sheriff of the city and county of Albany. The cause was tried at the Albany circuit, in October, 1815. The declaration stated the judgment and ca. sa., in this court, against Hubble, and that he escaped on the 11th of March, \815.

<p>Fees of electors °r £raai sa,u*'</p>

IN ERROR, from the court of Common pleas of HerTcirnei' > 1 county.

<p>THIS was an action of assumpsit, on three promissory notes, payable on demand, made by the defendant to one Jacob Brandigee, or order, and by him endorsed to the plaintiff, dated the 18th of April, 1807, for one hundred dollars each. The cause was tried at the Otsego circuit, in May, 1815, before Mr. J. Spencer.</p>

THE above, and several other suits, were brought on notes issued by the banks, and which they had refused to pay in gold or silver, which had been demanded of them, the banks, generally, having suspended their payments in specie.

<p>Where an in¡(™cei°'“r,s33U“j Scen"r, ‘¡I,® “u°rpose,Porto be dissolved, immediately from that it was held that the injunction was not revived hy that appeal, so as to operate as ® st!jyof lb®</p> <p>an in-Í™esoniyoiTuM> Scys^nd’agelíw] will take notice opcraUve^in-8 purpose of pro-rooting the ends of justice ana preserving har“°«y between</p>

THIS was an. action of trespass, brought against David Gelston, collector, and Peter A. Schenck, surveyor, of the customs of the port of Meio-York, for seizing a vessel called the American Eagle, with her tackle, apparel, furniture, ballast, water, Salted provisions, and ship bread, on the 10th of July, 1810. The declaration contained several counts, which it is unnecessary to state, and the plaintiff laid his damages at 200,000 dollars.

<p>pn a motion for judgment, as In ‘pase of nonsuit, for not bringing to trial an issue joined in the ci'ty of ffeiy-Ypris? theaffidavitmust state that the pause couidhavgs toeen tried, in its peder on the calendar, or that yaungpr issues</p>

ISSUE was ioined in this cause the 29th of May, 1815, the d Of* venue being laid in the county of Schenectady.

<p>The attorney fat ancí'^ñtum tefo°eru%Csívvthe’sheriir.is aUstructed’by the attorney, to alter the return day, ni case theeerrvedanbeforee the ^iteration! men! or‘\ppearance is-ehilgrsed,</p>

<p>The service of ¡So! in°a. cue try’ and detain-. either Ay - íng a notice in writing on some publie-and suite-i>ie place on the premises, as the front door .of the house, or by delivering the notice personally to the party against whom the complaint is made, on premises*</p> <p>Where the affidavit of service of notice stated, that the party-was not on the premises, and that the notice ivas “ put upon the house in.aconspicuous place,” it wa3 held not to be sufficient,-and tbe conviction was set aside,and co-restitution awarded •</p>

<p>THIS was an. action on an open policy of insurance, dated the 8th of May, 1807, on the cargo of the American ship. Mary, Richards master, on a voyage “ at and from New-York to An twerp; ii blockaded, to a porjt not blockaded,” “ upon coffee in casks, sugar, and ashes.” “Warranted not to abandon, if captured, until condemnation, or until after a detention of six months after advice is received of her capture. The exporter, not the • mi . -1 1 . , _ ímporter. Ihe cause was tried at the New-York sittings, be- * ° fore Mr. Justice Yates,, in May, 1814, subject to the opinion of 7 v7 ? J i the court, on a case, with permission to either to turn the same into a special verdict. The case, however, instead of stating the facts as they would have , been found by the special verdict of a jury, set out all the evidence, consisting of depositiohs, letters, &c,, in hcec verba..</p> <p>The. following are all t’he parts of the evidence it is thought material to state:</p> <p>The master, in his deposition, stated, that the ship sailed on the voyage insured, the 10th of May, 1807. On the 10th of June, she was boarded by an English privateer, and carried into Portsmouth, in England, where the master made his.protest: and being released by an order of the court of admiralty, he. sailed on the lllh of July, and arrived in Flushing roads on the 14th of July, when they took On board a pilot. An armed force was put on board, which, continued-on board until the ship reached Antwerp, and until the cargo was landed. There were two or three ships of war lying in Flushing roads at the dme-the , J\Iary entered. there ¿ and- she could not have gone to sea again without being boarded by some of them*. The armed force which came on board, inquii’ed of the master, whether he had been in England, and he answered, that he had'been captured and carried in there,. Nothing was said about-his.being allowed Jo enter. and land his cargo at Antwerp; nor was he warned not to go there, or to any other port. The master stated, that he had no control over his ship, nor the power of directing where she should go, until after the cargo Was landed. That when the ship arrived at Antwerp, the custom-house officers, in consequence of the ship having been carried into 'England, kept the firmed force on board of her, and, Refused to give permission to íánd the cargo, until the.25th of August, when permission was received, as he Understood, from Paris, to land the cargo, on condition that- it should be deposited in the stores of the custom . house, Which was, accordingly, done. The armed force on bohrd he’believed to be iVenc?imm,buthe neither understood nor .spoke French or German. On his cross exa mination, he verified a protest made by him fit Antwerp, and stated, that several American ships, were at Antwerp, in the same' situation, none of . which left that place with their cargoes. -He never inquired of,the consignee, or- any other' person, whether he could depart with, his cargo,, but waited for orders for landing it, and did land it, in pursuanee of orders received from the consignee, bn the ,25th' of August, and returned to New-Yorkc with the .ship in ballast. The clerk of the consignees, and a cüstom-hóuse officer, also, took an account of the landing of the Cargo; and the clerk gave a receipt on his set of the bills of the lading. That he had no Communication with the custom-house officers at Antwerp before landing his cargó; he did not remember whether he entered his Ship, or not, before he had orders to land his cargo ; that he knew nothing of any permission from Paris to land itthat he acted in pursuance of orders from the consignees, by whom he was directed to land it. [ He did not know for what purpose the armed men were put on board,'but supposed it was to guard the vessel; hor did he recollect their number, nor whether the same men who came., on board at Plashing continued to Antwerp; they might have been the same or others. He knevv nothing of any arrangement between the consignees and the French government about landing the cargo, nor of the. terms or conditions on which it was landed. That he did nót know the reason why he did not state, in his protest, that the vessel was taken possession Of by an armed'forcé in Flushing toads, but supposed, that he did not think it necessary. Several of the master’s answers, in this respect, to the questions put to him, appeared confused and •inconsistent.</p> <p>Jacob Ridgeway, who was-the American consul at Antwerp, and resided there from 1801 to 1808, and, afterwards, at ■Paris, until 1810, deposed, that the Mary, and several other ships, which he specified, arrived at Antwerp, in 1807, and had either been boarded by English vessels, or touched at English ports, and some of them were consigned to his house, That they were not permitted to depart with their cargoes; and demand, for that purpose, was made to the director of the customs, and, afterwards, to the emperor of France, through the minister, but without effect. The whole of their cargoes were put into depot, or the stores of the custom house, and were, afterwards, sold by the special order of the emperor, and the proceeds placed in his caisse d’amortissement, or sinking fund.' That the Mary was consigned to Parish Sr Co., and he did not believe that she could have departed without a special order from the emperor, and he did not believe that any such order could have been obtained; and his impression was that the consignees did endeavour to obtain such permission, through the agents qf the gqvernment. The cargo of the Mary was placed, by the order of the director of the customs, in the depot, or custom-house stores, and under the diresof- the officers of the customs. The consignees could hot either sell Or deliver the cargo; it was sold, by order of the emperor. The custom-house officers said they could not permit any ■American vessels, which had been boarded by' British vessels, or touched at. iirihs/i ports, to depart,, without the special leave of 'the emperor ; and he believed the- Mary could not have left Antwerp, with her cargo, without such special permission.. He 'did not know whether force Was used in landing the cargo, but beliévéd it was landed by direction of the custom-house officer. The cargoes of all the seven vessels mentioned by him, including the Mary, were landed and placed in depot, See., under sequestra-Ron; and cohtráry, he.belieyed', to the wishes of the consignees. As to the vessels consigned to his house, he spoke positively. Repeated applications for permission to depart, with their cargoes, ■ Were made without success. There was no prohibition, in this respect, as to vessels which had not been boarded by British ships of war, or touched at British ports. . ></p> <p>The consignees, in their letter to the plaintiff, of the 23d-of ■ July, 1807, after mentioning the arrival of the Mary, say, “ they aré going to send all her papers to Paris, in order to obtáin leave to land her cargo.” “ The cargo will remain under the control of the custom house, until a decision, which we have no great hopes of being shortly given.” In their.letter, of the 10th ' of August, they write r “ We are yet without any decision,” &c., “ nor have we obtained leave to land the Many’s cargo.” In September following, they again wrote: Enclosed you will find a printed note, by which , you will see that our government is fully determined to enforce the execution of the decree.of the *21st of November.” “ Not long after we wrote you last, we * had leave to land the 'Mary’s cargo.” “ We are apt to imaging ' that1 something is still to be determined in regard to such vessels whose;cargoes have been landed,- by permission of. the director' general of the customs,, authorized by the minister of finance. Are. those -cargoes to be admitted or not ?. Are they to be. adniitted under certain restrictions or conditions, or are they toybe sent back:?” In their letter of the 14th of April, Í808, they say, «■ We have hot discontinued a moment.doing every thing we- : could to obtáin the admission of the- sequestered cargoes per the -Perseverance and Mary l but. all without success;” ¿t We still 1 flatter ourselves that,--whatever may be the decision.which may be pronounced hereafter, in regard to the- American cargoes seized in our ports, in consequence of the decrees of the 23d of November and 17th of December, 1807, there will be an exception made in favour of those which, like yours, have, previously to these decrees, been admitted, provisionally, by the minister of finance, and the director general of the customs.” “ Wé have petitioned to be permitted to re-export those cargoes; but we do not suppose it will be granted.”</p> <p>In their letter of the 30th of May, 1808, they , wrote : “ We continue in the same uncertainty as to the sequestered cargoes; no decision having yet been given.” On the 4th. of August, 1808, they again wrote : “ We have the honour ;to inform you, that, by an imperial decree lately issued, it is ordered, 1st. That the cargoes entered into our ports, before the decrees of November and December, 1807, (which comprehend those under sequestration,) be sold immediately, by public sale, and the proceeds be.paid into the caisse d^amortissement. 2, That an inquiry shall be made, in order to. prove that the goods are not British property. 3. That the emperor reserves to himself the right of pronouncing on the result of such inquiry.”</p> <p>It appeared, from subsequent letters, that, after exhibiting the fullest proofs of American property, and various applications, no release of the cargo could be obtained; but it was, in June,. 1810, sold by order of the emperor, and the proceeds paid into the caisse d^amortissement. On receiving information of the sale, the plaintiffs, on the 13th of July, 1810, made a formal abandonment to the defendants for a total loss.</p>

THIS was an' action of assumpsit,. on a-promissory, note made by Packard, There was a demurrer to the second and third..pleas, and a join,der in demurrer, which wa§ submitted tó the court- without argument,

IN ERROR., to the court o^icommon pleas of Orange county. Nelson broughj his actibn in the court below against Dubois. The first count in the declaration was bn a promissory note, made by the defendant and one Benjamin Brundige, dated the 15th of November, 1811, whereby they, jointly and severally, promised to pay to the plaintiff, or bearer, 65 dollars, one year after date, -for value received.

DOWER for lands, in Granville, in Washington county. 7 ° J The husband of the demandant,- being seised in fee of about 2,000 acres of land in G., sold and conveyed them, in fee, in 1765, to John Lake, under whom the defendant acquired aregular title in fee. The husband died within two years after the deed to the his widow. At the time of the conveyance the premises- were new lands, „qnd ünimw pC0Ye¿. ¿ave beep since highly ■improved and. cultivated by. the defendant.

<p>EJECTMENT for lot No. 8S.,JaManlkis; tried before Mr: Justice Fan 'Npss, at; the’ Qnondagá circuit, in: June,,. 1815. A vérd.ict was taken for the plaintiff,, subject to the opinion óf the £ court:, on . a case containing the following facts r Both .parties claimed under Lebbeus Foster; the plaintiff, under a. mortgage from Foster to the lessor of the plaintiff, dated the 14th of March, 18Q6, for securing the payment of 1,000 dollars lent, in which it tvas expressly agreed that, for the use of that sum, Potter should have the use of the, premises for two years; ,and if the money was not paid at that time,. Potter was- to keep possession until it Was paid, and have the use of the. premises for the use of the money, , To the execution of this mortgage Charles B. Bristol Was a subscribing. witness.. The mortgage was not registered.</p> <p>The defendant gave in evidence an absolute deed; with- warn raiity, from Foster to Leonard,, dated the 20th of January, 1808, and duly recorded on the day of its date. .</p> <p>Charles B. Bristol, who had been discharged under the- insolvent act, was sworn as a witness for thp defendant. He testified that he made the purchase of the premises-of Foster, in the name of Leonard, and for his benefit, for 2,000 dollars that,, previous to the purchase, Leonard viewed the lot. while Patter was in possession. The witness stated’to Foster that Leonard had sent, By him, the 2,000 dollars for the land, and he paid Foster 1,000 dollars, and gave a bond conditioned to pay .1,000 dollars, due on the mortgage to Potter, who was then in possession of the premises; retaining, the other 1,000 dollars, which was unknown to Leonard. The reason assigned for retaining the 1*000 dollars, by the witness, was, that he was in treaty with Potter for the sale of 300 acres of land in Pompey, at 9 dollars per acre.; being part of 600. acres - which the witness had contracted to purchase of James Sackett ; and Potter proposed that the 1,000 dollars', due from Foster, should be applied towards the first payment for the' land in Pompey, which was, accordingly, agreed to be done. Potter removed from the premises, and went into possession of the land in Pompey, and the witness took possession of the premises for Leonard. The agreement was not in writing, though intended to be sp. Potter was to discharge the mortgage. The witness was unable to "fulfil' his contract "with Sackett, and gave it up, relinquishing what he had paid, about 350, dollars, at the instance of Potter, who said he could make another contract with Sackett; and it was.not until after he had made a contract with Sackett that Pottet said any thing about the mortgage money.</p> <p>Foster, also, was a witness for the defendant, and testified, .that he made the contract for the sale of the land to Leonard, with Bristol, for 2,000 dollars, 1 and executed- the deed to Ireonard. That Bristol paid ] .000 dollars in, cash,: and gave his bond, conditioned to pay Potter the amount of the mortgage, and-to indemnify the- witness: against it; that it was; in consequence of the advice and-request of.Potter /that 'he took thebond. Potter told him that he was about making' a purchase from Bristol of land in Porripey, apd in that way he was to be paid the 1,000 dollars, and the witness to be discharged from it. That, not long since, he was surprised by being told by Patter-, that something had taken place between him and Bristol, in consequence of which he should have to come back to the wit-; ness for the 1,000 dollars. ■' * ' " ; - '</p>

IN. ERROR, on certiorari to-a justice’s, court, The defendant in error, who was plaintiff in the-eourt belo'Wj brought an-action of trover, to recover’the.vá-lue óí a spinning-wheel. -The defendant pleaded the general issue, and a former . , action for the same cause, in which the present plaintiff .being ' ‘ . defendant, set off the presen t demand* which was tried- in that action.

IN ERROR,..on a certiorari to a justice’s court-., ' ' 0 ' ” Hunt,. plaintiff in court below,brought an action against thé defendant below, .the present plaintiff in error, as president of a court martiaj,-to .recover back a.fine of five dollars, which had been imposed.upon,. and;-collected of, the plaintiff bé.lów, as a delinquent.' The. plaintiffj When.he appeared before the court martial, claimed an exemption, as being a. contractor to carry .the military express mail…

THIS was an action of assumpsit. The first count of the declaration stated, that one Henry Osborn had been sued, and arrested by virtue of a warrant issued by one Henry Delord, a justice of the peace of the county of Clinton, at the suit of the defendant; in which suit the defendant claimed the sum of eight dollars, whereupon the plaintiff, as the agent of Osborn, and the defendant, agreed to submit the matter in controversy to the decision of Henry Delord and Henry Grun;…

<p>A declaration-on a bond, eouditi°ned for the performance of cove”a»ts. commenemgmdebt, t^Zi^";reSche?,ani co“enadnt.s aand damage???1« speciáiSdemu°r-</p> <p>Bu it is certainly good on a general demurer. Vide 12 Johns. Rep. 216. S. C.</p>

IN ERROR, on certiorari to a justice’s court. . - . , 1 his was an action of trespass on the case, brought by Shel- . \ • ? * don, the plaintiff below, against Pierce, a constable, for the amount of an execution delivered to him to be served, and which he had neglected to serve, or return, within the time limited.

THIS' was añ action of debt, on a judgment recovered in the superior court of the state of Connecticut, by Eunice Stanfont before her marriage with the plaintiff, Pawling,against the defendants,1 executors of John Bird, deceased.’ The defendants pleaded non dclinct-, accompanied with notice that they intended to insist upon, the .statute of limitations,, in.-bar of the plaintiff’s action. ■ The cause, was tried at the Albany circuit, in April, 1-815, before .Mr- J On. the…

IN ERROR, on certiorari to a justice^ court, The defendant in error brought ah action of assumpsit in the' conT^ below, against the plaintiff in error, in which the latter pleaded a former trial between the same parties, in which the defendant in error, the .plaintiff below, ought to have, set off the present demand. -The justice, before whom the former action was tried, appeared ás a witness, and produced his rninutes % -from which it appeared, that a judgment had. béen…

<p>Any damage befalling a chattel while it the hands of a bailee, without his misconduct» and while the chattel is employed in the use for which0 It was bailed» must beaustained by the bailor. So, if a horse be. hired to go a journey, and during the due prosecution o? the journey, without any ill treatment by the hirer, become lame, the hirer is not answerable fair</p>

THIS was an. action on the case, for overflowing the plaintiff’s land, by means of a mill-dam. erected by the defendant across the': Coóksackie -prepi?. The cause was. tried: at the Green oil’cuitj’tKe 26t£ of September, 1815.- The plaintiff proved that he possessed a farm contiguous to the West bank of the Cocksackie 'creek, extending’ along the same one '-fourth of a mile, a considerable part of which, adjoin-, , ing the ¿reek, was low land.

INERROR, on certiorari toa justice^,court; It appeared that,' after issuing the warrant,, arid before the day of trial, in this cause, the justice removed with his family .. •> . . . • , • • , ' mto a house which had been occupied ás a tavern, under an ' x agreement with the forpier occupant, that he,,.me justice, might “continue the tavern in the said house, until the license could ^e renewed.” -The cause.was tried.in that house a few days after the justice had taken…

IN ERROR, on certiorari to a justice’s court. The defendant in error brought an action in the court below ° against the plaintiff in error, for miury done to a horse.

This was- an action of covenant, which’ was tried at ,the Albany circuit, in April 1815, before Mr. Justice Platt.

This was án áctiéú of tfespriss ori the case.. , í^hé déclafe* contained ohé coünt, in which it was stated, that thé dfefondant, on the 1st of July, 1811, at the town of Fori Ann, in the county of Washington, intending to deceive rind defraud the plaintiff, did encourage him to buy a certain bay horse, théii in the possession of the defendant, of the value of 1A0 dollars^ and falsély, &c.,.affrmed that the said horse belonged to him, . the defendant, and that he had a right…

IN ERROR, on certiorari to a justice’s court. Davis, the plaintiff in the court below, brought an action against Lomo, the defendant below, for negligence in not defending a suit brought against him, the plaintiff, in the court of common pleas of Seneca county. A venire was issued in the cause, directed to any constable of the county, and was executed by a constable of the town of Ovid, but the jurors were taken from the town of ' Romulus, where the cause was tried.

IN ERROR* on certiorari to a justice’s court. The plaintiff in error, who was the defendant in the court be.low, having* ©n the return of the'summons, obtained an adjournmeht, appeared* on the day to which the causé,was adjourned, attorney, and requested another adjournment on account of the absence of material, witnesses.

<p>Where a person having recovered a Judgment in ejectment, neglects to enforce it within the period laid in his demise, h.is right of entry under that judgment is altogether '.gone; and, if there have been an adverse possession for 20 years, during whichsuch judgment was recovered, it will not avail him to take the case out of the statute of limitations.</p>

THIS was an action of trespass, guare clausum fregit, for breaking atjd entering the dwelling house of the plaintiff, and tearing out the doors and windows, and pulling down the oven and chimney, of the house. The defendant pleaded, 1. Not guilty. 2 Liberum tenementum. 3. That the defendant committed the supposed trespass by the license of the plaintiff.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, founded upon á written agreement, dated the 9th .of December, \m\, by which the defenda-nts bound themselves to the plaintiff, in the. penalty of one thousand dollars, as follows : that he, the plaintiff,, “should have, and hold’ a peaceable possession .of a certain farm, distinguished' and;known by lot No. -10., in' great lot No. 23., in Hardenburgh patent, &c.; which the said Kerr is to have pos- ■ session of one hundred acres on the west…

IN ERROR, on certiofd/ñ. tó a j.Ustieeis court. , . _ . . . , . The suit m the. court belojv was op. a promissory note execu- - > - * ted by Olmsted, the defendant, below, payable to Enos Stewart of bearer. C. the • plaintiffibgjow, As agent of E. Stezt* aRr. hud presented An Order on. the., defendant for the amount of an account due E. Stewart, and for which it was alleged that the note in question was given.

THIS was an action of oh the brought on the 9.th section of the. act concermnff distreskess (1 R. L. 436.,) to , recover double damages for making, a distress when no-rent was P ' o - ^ due. ' The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Platt, at the. Washington circuit, in June, 1815.

<p>IN ERROR, on certiorari to a justice’s,court,</p> <p>The defendant in error brought an action against .the plaintiff in, error, iA the court'below, for usé and •</p> <p>Dejpey,- the plaintiff below, demised, by'.parol, certain premises to the defendant below, for one -year,1 ending the 31st ctf J , y¿ ’■ December, 18Q9, at the . rent or 9 doUars¿, which, the defendant • : ■ >. . 1 V... \ paid, and continued in .possession for three years, without any b 7 ■ . A' # . <J .* ■ v agreement, and .without paying rent.- The', action was brought to recover rent for those, three years, and'judgment \vas given for the plaintiff below. '' ' ' ■ ,</p>

TWO justices of thepeacé of the .town oí Taghkanac, in the county of Columbia, had made an order for the removal of Eh- • zabeth Heydon and her four children, paupers, from that town to the city of Hudson. From this order the overseers of the poor of the city of Hudson appealed to the court of general sessions of the peace ef the county Of Columbia, which, at its session in May, 1814, confirmed the order of the justices.

IN ERROR, on certiorari tó a lust-ice’s1 court. ? ‘ This was aji action of trover for a sleigh, brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error.

IN ERROR, ón. éertiorari to a justice’s cq.uit- The plaintiff in error brought an action of assumpsit, against the defendants', in the court below, for ■ work and labour; the defendants pleaded, that Lynch,.one of the,defendants, was:an., attorney ; of the supreme court, which was. then sitting.

IN ERROR, on certiorari to a justice’s court. The plaintiff in error; who was, also, plaintiff in the court below, declared, in debt,, as well for himself as for- the overseers of the poor of the town of Rome, against' the defendant, for Selling, on the 1st of January, 1814, one gill of gin, to foe drank in the store of the defendant, without having entered into such recognisance as is required by the act to lay a duty on strong liquors, and for regulating inns and taverns ;…

THIS was an action of assumpsit, and . was tried at the Schoharie circuit, in November, 1815. The plaintiff gave in evidence exemplifications of two executions in the supreme court, and the return thereto. 1.

IN ERROR, to the court of common pleas of the county of Washington. This was an action of assumpsit, brought, in the court below, by Smith, the plaintiff in error, against Ware, the defendant in error. The declaration consisted merely of the money counts, to which the defendant pleaded non assumpsit. The plaintiff claimed compensation for a deficiency in the quantity of land of a certain farm sold by the defendant to the plaintiff.

<p>where a. ¡s' seised of a refersion ekpectant, on the dethe^ifó^tate the Curtesy, ás B°“the wife of thLurtes”/,an$ the fee°of The notf’become^! etock^of1’ descent; but a ■ ■ person claiming the- reversion must deduce his title immediately from b., the tl,e</p> <p>Therefore, the eidesS nót inherit, búl siseteí1t!l1fS b.1! sentativcs, ‘áre accoráingto thé provisions of the statute of descents.</p> <p>ad action of waste does not alaiS thehasr signee of theoníyeagmnst tíih tenant himself.?</p>

This was no action of debt, The plaintiffs declared on a bonc!’ dated the 2d of August, 1814, in the pénalty of 10,000 dollars.

IN ERROR/to the court of common' pleas of the county of Columbia. , ' 1 ' ■ : , . ■ This was .an action of assumpsit, which was tried at the Magi term of the court below, in 1815, and was brought to recover the value of the services of two of the plaintiff’s'children, a boy and girl, who. went into the defendant’s employ in the latter part of'February^ 1812, and continued with him until July.. 1814, when they absconded frota- the defendant.

THIS was an action of debt, on a bond executed to the wife ' ^ P‘a'nt‘ff, Labagh, when sole, by John Cantine, brought against the defendants, as heirs and devisees.

<p>plaS¡Dgwt¡^ dyXul/isac^““bis'taing iEce ,d!n™ivt E“oral tur£"'</p>

IN ERROR, to the court of common pleas of the countv of ■ JSiCtgCtra, This was an action of tx-espass, de bonis asportatis, for taking a h°rse belonging to the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded, 1, ^ot g^ty* 2.

THIS was a suit in partition, tried before bis honour the chief justice, at the Orange circuit, in September, 1814.

THIS was an action of trespass, quare clausum fregit, against the defendant and one Ely, for entering upon the lands of the plaintifi's, expelling them from thence, and taking the issues and profits. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and liberum tenementum ; and the plaintiffs new assigned the locus in quo on which the trespass was alleged to have been committed. To the new assignment, the defendant pleaded, 1. Not guilty ; 2.

THIS was. an action- on- a joint and several promissory note, of which the defendant was one of the makers, dated the 7th of October, 1803, payable to E'benezer Whiling, or order, four years- ' alter date, for 152 dollars and 52 cents, and endorsed by th& Payee i° R>e plaintiff..

THIS was an action of debt brought against the defendant on the 8th section of the act “ to prevent and punish champerty and maintenance(1 N.R.L. 172.,) for buying the pretended right, or title, of one Mooney, to the south half of lot No. 50, in the late Oneida reservation, in Sullivan, in the county of Madison. The cause was tried before Mr. J. Van Mess, at the Madison circuit, in July, 1815.

The plaintiff in error, who was also plaintiff in the court below, brought an action of assumpsit against the defendant to recover the price of a set of grist-mill stones.

<p>ÍTIIS was an action of assumpsit brought to recover the rent of certain premises, situate in the village of Catslcill and county of Greene. The declaration contained two counts, one for the use and occupation of the premises in question, the other a quantum meruit thereon. The plea was the general issue. «</p> <p>On the 1st of April, 1793, the plaintiffs being the owners of the premises above mentioned, by an indenture of that date, made between them and one David Van Bergen, demised the ° A mises to Van Bergen for the term of ten years, then next 0 J t ensuing, at an annual rent of four pounds ten shillings. The following covenant was contained in the indenture: “Provided, nevertheless, that the parties do hereby agree, that, at the expiration of the above term, the parties of the first part shall, if convenient, take and pay for the buildings on said lot at the appraisal of three indifferent men to be chosen by the said parties, or let the said lot for a yearly rent, to be fixed by three indifferent men, in like manner to be chosen by the said parties, ii iii • t Í It is, nevertheless, to be observed, that the said party of the second part shall not put on said lot any more buildings than a house and barn, which buildings only are to be appraised and paid for.” The lessee took possession under this indenture, and the premises, after sundry mesne assignments, came into the possession of the defendant. The rent claimed by the plaintiffs was what had accrued since the assignment of the lease on the 10th of June, 1808. On the expiration of the term, the plaintiffs refused to have the buildings appraised, but offered a re- ^ , newal of the lease for some short period of time; but the de4 fendant insisted that he was entitled to a perpetual lease of the premises, and the plaintiffs offered to give a lease for a term not exceeding ten years, which the defendant refused. The parties thus differing as to their rights and liabilities, no rent was paid by the defendant. It was agreed by the parties that the rent of the premises for ten years,’ from the 1st of April, 1803, when the lease expired, ought to be estimated at twenty-five dollars per annum, and the rent on a perpetual lease at fifty dollars .per annum. And, for the purpose of deciding all the rights and liabilities óf the parties on the'facts above Seated, certain s%«¡> latfons as to the mode of enforcing, the decision of the* court were subjoined to the Case, which it is unnecessary to state... ■</p>

<p>in an for the price a chattel, the prove ™ deceit in the sale, and njatthe^chattei and thus defeat ■the plaintiff’s wn=ouMnessitiie }y°aUpar«Sedn va?uT0he0míy ln°iñitigatioSaof damagos.,</p>

THE defendant was arrested and held to bail in an action of debt, brought t© recover the penalty, given by the 14th section of “ the act concerning distresses, rents, &c., (sess. 36. eh. 63. 1' JST.

THIS. ftas'. .a1 special aetión-. on the,,case, for. erecting, a. ■* - - _ - _ ^ • i i't nuisance-, in which the plaintiff recovered, fofty-fiYe dollars 1 . v ^ ’ : • quéstr<?n on the presentijiotion was* whether ,thé.plaípti'ff cpuld recover costs, of-must .pay- cosfs.

THIS was an action of covenant. The declaration set forth an agreement, under seal, dated the 25th oi April, 1815, by which the plaintiffs covenanted to make and furnish, at the Granville cotton factory, a quantity of machinery, of a certain description, one half of which was to be delivered in October, 1815, and the other half.on, or before, the 1st of May, 1816, and that the defendant, in and by the said agreement, covenanted to pay the i . . fv* n , ° J . plaintiffs lor…

<p>ÍN ERROR, oft certiorari to a justice’s court.</p> <p>The defendant in error brought an Action, in the court below, against the plaintiff in error, for killing his dog. It was prayed*, at the-trial, that the dog Was very vicious, and frequently-, attacked persons passing in the street, in Lcmsmgburgh, where the parties resided. The plaintiff below had frequently been notified of the ferocious acts of his dog, and had been requested by the neighbours -ter kill or confine him. The dog in question.had been bitten,, á few days before lie was killed, by a mad. dog. There being a very great alarm in the village of Lansingburgh, oh account óf mad dogs, the inhabitants petitioned the trustees to pass by-laWs for restraining dogs, and killing those that should be found at large; and the trustees according-' ly passed a law, declaring it lawful for any person to kill any dog which should be found at large in the' village. It was also proved that the plaintiff below called upon the defendant, and informed him,.that a cértain other dog in the village was' mad, and requested him to go and shoot it ; that the defendant accordingly took his gun for that purpose, and in passing through the -village met the plaintiff’s dog; punning loose,, and, shot him dead. Judgment was given for the plaintiff below.</p>

<p>no7ap°peaf aft “DgSaencmtiMt‘ agents it will be vate contract.-</p>

THIS was a motion, to set aside the report of referees appointed by a rulé of,court, in an action of assumpsit brought by the plaintiffs,-as assignees, und'el- the insolvent act of April,: 1811, of Magee, anpnsol.ven't debtor.

IN ERROR, on certiorari to a justice’s court. The defendant in error brought' an action in the court below against the plaintiff in error, who was captain Of-a company Of militia during, actual service, in the year .1814, for his wages ánd íations. as a drummer in the company: .

<p>Where a person.tóíanü, conveys afterwai-tis, purchases a title to the same land, from • maintain-mg an action subsequently11 to’the'be-tee abíimeEoni firaation -of bis ■ ' - •</p>

<p>A bill of cxoeptoojusUcSoniy coramon°Upicas! of ^exceptions* jad\ciitlTVake notice of, or grant a writ^ to tices to come deny</p>

<p>An action on the case lies for setouring the set-thet °pia!S,°f thepenaityndgn-concLning' ast vmtl<*(2 wr. á cumulative rc“edy‘</p>

THIS- was an. action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiff aS?linst the defendants, as endorsors’ of m bill- of exchange for 7501., sterling, drawn, by Robert Patton,. jun., of Alexandria, on IngRs, Ellice Co, of London, in favour of Robert Patton, dated the 28th of July, 1812, and which had been duly protestéd for non-payment, and'notice thereof given.

THIS was an action of trespass on the case for a deceit in selling to the plaintiff, for a valuable consideration, land which had no existence. The cause was tried before Mr. J. Spencer, at the New-York sittings, in November, 1815.

IN ERROR, on certiorari to a justice’s court. ■ ? Judgment having beéri given in the coni^t below: against tne plaiptiiT in error,. he claimed exemption from’ imprisonment: ori. the' ground-that he had a family, and was'.not a freeholder ¿. but, appearing that'he was an inhabitant of another county, the justice refused to'grant it, and execution: was issued agdinst him in tlie usual form. ■ - ' .. - . - - ; ■'

THIS was an action of debt on a judgment, in which the deJ ° ^7 fendant had pleaded nul tiel record, with notice, that he should r s y ^ give in evidence, under that plea, his discharge under the insolvent act.

<p>in an action ibr a 15i>el» deehmmonwasailowed to be anjendeMpasto change the v&niie,; it resting in the sound discretion of the court,-under th e of the cate.</p>

<p>after’3mal18©; Sra ’’of'íiie ^ere'tofants!10 cottse™mc pTo iunc‘</p>

THIS was an action of assumpsit, for money had and received to the use of the plaintiff, and was tried at the New-York sittings, in October last, before Mr. Justice Platt, when a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court, on the iollowmg case : In the autumn of the year , 1813, while the British cruisers ... , were hovering on our coast, and occupying Long-Island sound, the plaintiff, a citizen of Hartford, in the state of Connecticut,…

THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought to recover th& . , _ , * ' - , . . , . . Price °* thirty-three kegs of tobacco belonging to the plaintiff,. aud consigned to the defendant for sale, The tobacco in question was, in October, 1813, consigned by q1G plaintiff, a merchant residing at Richmond in Virginia, to. the defendant, a commission merchant in New-York, to he sold on commission.

. Bf ERROR, .to the .court of ¡common pleas,' of, the county of rt, .7 „ _ ■ ’ “ • ‘ , Ot,6Uu67l» r 1 Hull, the defendant in. error, who was:;.plaintiff .in, the- court, , T\ 7 . 7 . . r below,. brought an action- ot assumpsit -against Pratt, which was dbftMhn/- last..

THIS was an'actioh of ejectment,, for land lying in the conn* ty of DutchessThe cause Was-tried at.the .Di^cfesscircuit.iri Jfo -On- the 24 th. of October, 1686, a - patent, was - granted, by the' .government of theprovince of -New~ York,, to .Sanders Heermance$ for .twelve thousand acre's of land.

IN ERROR, on certiorari to a justice’s court. The defendant in error, who was plaintiff in the court below, brought, an action against the • plaintiff in error in .the court below, and proved that the bull of the latter had gored his horse; but there was no evidence that the bull -had ever before done similar acts, or that he had ever before been unruly. The justice gave judgment for the plaintiff below, the defendan t in error. >

TEMS wií an-' indictment for. forcible entry and detainer; proceedings. before the justice' were pemóvedúnto^this. c'ourfr fey certiorari;-, and the‘traverse was' tried at- the -Dut'cHeSs in August, 1'81-S, before Mr. Justice.Fan' Ness.

IN ERROR., to the court of common pleas of the county of 'Sullivan. The plaintiffs in error brought an action of debt in the court below against the defendant in error, on an arbitration bond for the penal sum of 500 dollars, conditioned to abide by, and perform, the award of the arbitrators named therein ; and assigned two several-breaches.’ The defendant pleaded non est factum.

. THIS was ah action Pf.eiectmentfor lands,iri the1 tbwn of Fish* . ° : • :]cill, in the county .of Dvtctless»' The cause was .tried1 before Mrs J. Van 'Hess, at the Dutchess' circuit, in August,, 1-815. ■' lessors of the plaintiff' 'claimed. Under1 the RuynbouG or. 'Fishk-ill, patent, dated the 17th of October, 1685, to Francis Rúriibúut, Jacobus.

IN.ERROR, on certiomri to a jus.tice?s .court, » mi . * . V , • i v 1 ne action,- in-the court below, .was .to. recover; damages 101? sbcep,'belonging to the plaintiff, killed by the--defendant’s dbg.' At the trial, a witness was called,- on behalf of the defendant., te» á con'Versatihh between him and the defendant,/ in which die latter.had denied that he was the owner of the dog;, the tesfimony, was objected to, but the- .justice decided .that the witness might go,through…

THE defendant was indicted at the court of general sessions of the peace, held in and for the county of Rensselaer, in February last, for stealing certain promissory notes.

THIS wás ail action of debt ór á recognizance of bail, t. ° ■ The, original suit was against John; Hazard^ on .a .promtssory note, ia Which judgment was 'obtained as of January term,, 1812,- for 1,094 dollars And, 8 cents damages and costs.- The defendants pleaded, 1. Payment by-the principal before the commencement of the suit, against the bail, to wit, on the lit’of ■April, 1812. 2.

<p>Where A. delfe, - Tered six sheep to *B., on án agreement that, at ttie end óf a year, B. would deliver A. an equal number of fehéep of equal •value, it was held that the property in the sheep was ¿hanged, and that B. was bound to deliver §ix sheep of.equal valué to A* at the expiration " of the year, although part of the sheep had' been taken under an attachment agaicstA.</p>

THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration contain- - . x ed the usual money counts, and a count upon an tnsimul computassenti ■ . ■ ' ' - On the 8th of March, 1811, the parties, at Poughkeepsie, entered into a written agreement, by which the defendant contracted to sell to the plaintiff a place called “ the Four Corners, in the town of Washington, and the lands included in a mortgage givén by Ébenezer Haight to M‘ehemiah-Rogers and Daniel R. Lambert, dated the 18th of…

M ERROR, •on certiorari tpá-jnsiffee^'-coyrt.. . The defendant in. error brought ah action jn the court below. agai»sí the plain tiff, in errpr, and declared*, for that he, the plain? tiff: below,,as constable, had,, in his cusfody, one JChaf les., Bife lings,. by virtue of two r executions, an.d the defendant, in.cqn. stderation.that the plaintiff Would' 'release and discharge' Bifr. fe^i,.and that Billings would go'fo.jypfk for.him, the 'defendant, prom ispd .the plaintiff…

THIS was an action of ejectment, to recover párt bf lpt No. 4, in the sixth allotment of a tract bf land, in the town of Minden, and county of Montgomery j granted by letters patent, dated the Í3th of November, 1731, to Abraham Vdn Horne, William Pre. '■host, Philip Livingstoti, and Mary Burnet. The cause wax tried before Mr. J. Plait, at the Montgomery circuit, in August, 1813.

<p>t Where- $• <Iáféndant has been taken under á tu sa. and discharged • from custody on the ‘ ground that no previous' ,/?, fa. had been issued on the judgment, (there be- " ing special bail in .the action) the' sheriff is, • notwithstanding, entitled to poundage5;as he has incurred-the risk of • being made liable ifor san escape,! in án ■ ^.action for which Jie could hot have availed •himself of the • irregularity as a defence. '•</p> <p>Arid it makes no difference ’ -that the defend- • antafter his dischargeconfessed a new judgment to the plaintiff for the amount of the former judgment, pn which satisfaction was entered} and that a ca. sa. having '•been regularly issued óa.' the second judgment, the sheriff had been paid his . poundage thereon. '</p>

A MOTION was made to set aside the report of referees in this cause. The plaintiff is a son of the defendant, and was born in 1773, and lived with and worked for his father, on his farm, until 1810; except that for one or two years during that time, he had the farm on shares.

ERROR, to tíre court,of common jffeas-of the. county'of’Pihua ' • ■ ’ - ' ' ' , ” '-*■ tvgU» •. . . , - The defendants in error, who were the pi? intiffs in the court below, brought an action of indebitatus assumpsit, in the court below, for meat, drink, board, washing, lodging, medicines, medical assistance, attendance, and other necessaries, provided at the special instance and request of the defendants, as overseers of the poor of the town of Tioga, for one Robert M'Phee,…

THIS was an action of debt on a bond executed by the deiendants, to the people of the state of New-York, dated the 8th of June, 1808, in the penal sum of 24.936 dollars, and condi- • T 7 7 n ' 7 tioned that Hermanns Bouck, and Jeremiah Brown, two of the deiendants, should well and truly perform the office and duty of commissioners for loaning money for the county of Schoharie. The breach assigned was, that, on the 1st of June, 1814, the defendants).

<p>When an order has been msde for the assignementJj¡¡¡ntth®/an ¡“1 ™Er“4 iifetasHÍ section of the insolvent act, <1 N. R. L. 464.). the officer granting the order cannot after-wards vacate it, unless there has been surprise oa the opposing creditors, or they have been misled by the opposite party.</p> <p>W here thé counsel for the opposing creditors was, while going to the office of the recorder of Neiv-Yorle to oppose the insolvent’s discharge, met by one of the attorneys for the petitioning creditors and insolvent, and detained by him in conversation and the perusal of papers relating to the opposition, and in the mean time the ^®r SoDingíredüo'rí coito,‘and X «Susolvent’s estate, under these re-recorder ought</p> <p>officer be {^®ce'’,“| tmntllof9theSfn¡“T^ó'íid satisfied that two thirds of the creditors had requested that an assignment of the insolvent’s estate should be made; 'álthmigh if it appear, after the assignment has been made, that two thirds of the creditors had not assented, the assignment is, notwithstanding, valid.</p> <p>If the creditors do not attend in due time to oppose, their assent is presumed, and that they have waived their opposition.</p> <p>The assignment having been made by the insolvent himself, under the 9th section of the insolvent act, he is to be discharged, on conforming with the directions of the act, in respect to petitioning creditors; he must therefore make out, under oath, an aeeouot of his creditors, and a just ami true inventory of his estate, and deliver over his estate to bis assignees; but’he is not bound to advertise anew,</p>

IN ERROR, on certiorari to the justices’ court of the city oíxr j Jy i OTIC• Duckingfield brought an action in the court below against „r 7 7 . , . ° , Webb, to recover his wages as a seaman on board of the ketch . ° Maria, of which Webb was master, on a voyage “ from Savan7 7 •' © t0 l*-oUer^am7 or °ne more port in Europe, and from thence to ber Port of discharge in the United States.” The plaintiff below performed his duty on board the vessel during the voy-, age> and…

This Wás an action- of assumpsit- for níbñéy paid. Th& .cause was tried before Mr. J. Platt., at the New-York sittings* ; ^n ^ „ ° m IJ^cemoer.i IBloi : The plaintiff-gave in evidence a receipt signed bv the de¡1 . ° . ■ r 0 : ' ' fendant,. which was in the .following Words; “Received, Newa York, 18'th .pf Apr-il,-1807, of Mr. William-Cunningham, in cash and notes, five-thousand and seventy-five dollars, in full for One hundred and forty-five shares in the Newburgh and…

THIS was an action on'the case for a fraudulent representation in the sale of land. The declaration contained six counts.

THIS was an action of covenant. The declaration contain-e . , . , ' ■ , and certain lands described' mine agreement: and covenanted. . ° ’’ • ■ , ? also, that he would not, in the mean time, cut any wood or tim* ber from the lands, except for firewood, and that he would not. feed-the lands in the spring of the year 1813, and that he would not remove the straw and manure made thereon, nor work any quarries on the land ; and the plaintiff, on his part-, covenanted to. pay the…

THIS was an action of eiectment for lot No. 7. in -the town-_ , ** ‘ ,. . . > ship of Ovid, and was tried at the Seneca’circuit, m June, 1815, r ’ ‘ before Mr. Justice Van JVess. ' - * ' “ -» The lessor of the plaintiff gave in evidence the letters patent for lot No. 7. in Ovid, to Jacob Van Gender, 'bearing date the 13th of September, 1790, to which was attached a certificate fi’oru the secretary of state,, that the- patentee’s name entered in the ballot-book, and that he…

THIS was an action of trespass for'seizing and taking a schooner .called the Nancy, againsti. the defendant, who is */7 0 7 surveyor of the port of New-.York.

A HABEAS CORPUS was issued in this case, in May term ° - ^ to ^n^rew McGowan, to^bring up the body of Margaret P^za Waldron, an infant, alleged to be detained in his custody. h appeared, from the affidavits which were read to the court, that John P.' Waldron had married the daughter of Andrew M‘Gowan, and that, having become embarrassed and insolvent, SPGowan, in.February, 1813, took his daughter to his house, without her or her husband’s consent, as was alleged on the part…

<p>In collateral matters arising In the progress of a suit, as on a motion for a commission to examine witnesses abroad, affidavits taken before magistrates or publicofficer* out of the state, may be read»</p>

<p>cofnlaLnées11 ro? sSlui brought in mónrtpieas¡ must the co™rt of the the sSt‘wSril lé"iallímhe'par. ties who entér into the recognisanee reside within its juris diction, and not in this c&ucti</p>

THIS was an action of' slander, commenced in the court' of common pleas of Otsego couniy, and removed into this court by habeas corpus, in which the. plaintiff here recovered ten dollars damages only, and the recorder of Albany had taxed the costs , . j nclt t6Il aoliars*

THIS was an action on the case, to recover damages for the nondelivery of a quantity of salt, which the defendant had sold to the .plaintiff, and contracted to deliver to him, at Turks-Island. The defendant was arrested and held to bail, without a judge’s order.

<p>THIS was an action of ejectment, brought for the recovery of / '■ „ * ■ ° . ; • ■ 0 j0t Mo. 13., in the township of CamilluB, which was tried before Van Ness, at the Onondaga circuit, in June,. 1815. . .'</p> <p>At the trial, the plaintiff gave in evidence a deed from Timo‘thy Downs (who was described, therein/as the heir at laty of Ptttrick Downs, tq tyhom a patent fqr tlpe lot iq question had been granted) to the lessor of the plaintiff, for the premises, dated the 16th July, 1793; also, a fine sur cognizance de droit come ceo, &c., levied in this court between Eunlock Woodruff, plain tiff, and Elkanah Watson, the lessor of the plaintiff, deforceant, on Tuesday the 13th of August, 1305, of the premises in question, and. which was registered in the clerk’s office of the county of Onondaga, on the 12th September, 1805, and a release, dated 10th of August, 1805, of the premises, from Hunlock Woodruff, to the lessor of the plaintiff.</p> <p>The defendant gave in evidence that he went into possession of the premises under a contract for the sale thereof to him, by one Joseph Brush, in the year 1807, at which time the land was wild and uncultivated; and that he had continued in possession ever since, and made improvements.</p> <p>A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court, on the above case.</p>

IN ERROR, on certiorari to a justice’s court. Johnson, the defendant in- error., brbught ah action of debt in the court below, against the plaintiff in error, and declared generally for the penalty of twenty-five dollars for selling strong 'and spirituous liquors, contrary to the 7th section of the act to lay a duty on strong liquors, &c. The plaintiff being called upon for the particulars of his charge, specified certain small quantities of liquors sold to particular…

THIS was an action of debt on a bond in the penalty of 400 dollars, dated the 21st ’September, 1810. ■ The defendant craved oyer, arid set forth the condition of the bond, which was for the payment of three sums, each of 66 dollars and 67 cents, in one, two, and three years, from the date; and then pleaded. 1.

<p>dteefo/apró-' Ssín adfirit ttat-ttiSfft tice of the non|eí^ntttó°hím which ho is actually resident, wdjf directed uíat°dueh°dif^ to”a*ecertain"'ws wuhouuucclss1 charged,be d’5’</p>

<p>THIS wás an action of trover, ;tried before Mr. Justice Spencer> at the Albany circuit, id April,-IZIG.</p> <p>The plaintiff was the owner of a raft, consisting of plank, joist, and' boards, and whilst coming down the North River,An , • ' a - ^ . . . . „ _ • the' autumn'ot the year 1815, with the rait, one Potter carné upon . ■' : . ' . , - ’ , . ... fhe rait, ancr offered tq .buy it ; the price was agreed upori'; it stlsó’ agreed, that the plaintiff ■should: deliver it at-one of the docks Albany, and be at the expense of taking it out &e- water. Potter then applied to the'defendant, who-kept á lumber-yard, in Albany, to purchase-the lumber’which the plaintiff had agreed to sell him; bat Potter and the .defendant n.ot being able to settle,the bargain,it- was agreed that the de. fendant’should-take and .sell thp lumber. The plaintiff arrived with his raft, the next day, and brought it to the defendant’s „ . . , dock, and there inquired or one of the Witnesses in the cause. : • for Potter, and asked if Potter was nof tq have more hands to take out andj pile 'the lumber; and said that he had sold if to Potter.- Hé then left the raft, and went into the citypánd at 4 o’clock in the affefcrjoon, at which time alj, the raft was takeii out of the wafer, and nearly all piled, a few culling pieces ex-cepte,d, the plaintiff returned and fprbade any’more to be piled, saying that Potter had gone. off. The defendant, pn the same day, advanced to Potter, on account of the deposite- of lutírbér,' 10Q dollars ; and also gave him an order on Wilder & Hustings for ISO dollars, ip goods, which-were, in the evening of the same dayj delivered, to him. There was no fopmal delivery of the lumber-to P'qiter, who, it was: conceded,- was a[ cheat, and had absconded. The plaintiff proved a demand-on‘the defendant to restore thp lumber, or pay for it, g-nd a refusal. The,' jury found a verdict for thé plaintiff, subject to. the opinion of j.he court,, on a case containing the above fact?-,:</p>

THIS was an action of debt on an administration bond against the defendant, as surety.

IN ERROR, on certiorari to a justice’s court. THE defendant in error brought an action of trespass in the ... ', A court .below against the plaintiff in error, and declared, for that he had, without authority, issued a written ordei’, commanding a constable to levy a fine for the delinquency of the son of the plaintiff below, as a soldier in the militia; in pursuance of which order the constable took and sold the cow of the plaintiff.

THIS was an action of trover, to recover .the .value of four óf flour, which had been levied; upon and sold by the defendant, by virtue of a Warrant .from the trustees of the twelfth-school district in the town of Munroe', directing the defendant to collect from the plaintiffs the. sum of forty-eight dollars, which had been assessed on them, for the .purpose of building a school- .. • - *• •’ iJOUSe* ^ . • • • * * ; • é • ’ ‘ , plaintiffs weremeowners of. mills, and other…

THIS was an action of trespass, iormesne profits, which was tried before Mr. Justice Platt, at the Greene circuit, in Sepfemher 1 81 T lemotr, 1010.

THIS was an action of covenant, which was tried at the New-York sittings, in April, 1816, before his honour the chief jus- + , u'“'c* The declaration set forth articles of agreement, made the 30th of April, 1810, between the plaintiff and defendant, by which the latter agreed to work for the plaintiff as a glass-man; and the breach was, that the defendant would not work for the plaintiff, ,. . . i . p i according to the articles of agreement.

THIS was an action on a policy of insurance, on the schooner Melinda, from Philadelphia to New-York.

<p>IN ERROR, on certiorari to a justice’s court.</p> <p>The defendant in error brought an action in- th The defendant in error brought an action in the court below, against the plaintiff in error, to'recover the penalty for encroachihg on.the highway, under the 21st section of the Act for regulating highways, (2 N. R. L. 277, 278.) On the trial it ápcroachihg on.the highway, under the 21st section of the Act for ' ' - ~ * * * peared" that thé high way in question hád been duly laid out and recorded ; that two of the commissioners of highways of the 7 . . . . , „ --5> town of Onondaga had notified the defendant that hrs fences encroached on. the highway, and requested him to remove them* and that the defendant denying the encroachment, one of the commissioners, on behalf of the board, applied to á justice of the peace, for a precept to summon a jury to inquire of the encroachment. Notice thereof was given to the defendant below, and he attended the inquest, and assisted in the examination and survey, and set up stakes to designate the road. The jury summoned for, that purpose found the encroachment, and certified it by special metes and bounds, according to the statute ; but the defendant did not remove his fences within sixty days, as required by the act. The defendant objected to the recovery, on the ground that it did not appear that all three of the commissioners attended and consulted together, in regard tO'the encroachment; but the justice overruled the objection. The defendant then offered to prove, that, in fact, there was «o encroachment; which evidence the justice refused to hear, and gave judgment for the plaintiff below. In the amount of costs, for which judgment was given, the justice included 12 cents for two subpoenas, issued on behalf of the defendant below. ■</p>

THIS was an action ofdebt. The declaration contained several counts : 1. On a iudgment recovered in this court by the , jo i i i plaintiffs against the defendants; and, 2* Counts for goods sold, money lent and advanced to, and money paid, laid out, and expended for, the defendants, and money had and received. To this declaration there was a general demurrer, and joinder m demurrer. - -

IN ERROR, on certiorari to a justice’s court. After issue was. joined in the court below, the defendant m error, who was the plaintiff below, applied for an adjournment, which was granted, and a day fixed on by the parties.

THIS was an action of ejectment, brought to recover a house and lot of land, situate in the city of Hudson. The case was tried before Mr. Justice Spencer, at the Columbia circuit, in * August, 1815.

<p>THE defendant, who is an attorney of this court, was sued by a bill in assumpsit, and gave a cognovit actionem in the cause, for 35 dollars and 83 cents, beside costs. The plaintiff entered up judgment for the amount of damages confessed, and for , r J ° ° ... the costs, taxed by the recorder of Albany, as m this court, to 39 dollars and 42 cents.</p>

<p>SecelSy^tS04 fendantthw¡£hdeá brdniyavuhna ch°angtogrthe declaration ontered,ayateaSy confirm to the</p>

THIS was an action of debt, on the 8th section of the statute, to Prevent and punish champerty and maintenance, brought against the defendant for selling a lot of land, in the town of Sernpromus, and county of Cayuga, which it was alleged was, at the time of sale, held adversely to the defendant. The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Yates, at the Cayuga circuit.

IN ERROR, on certiorari to a justice’s court. In the course of the- trial in the-court below, while the defendant in error, who was also defendant in the court below, was proceeding with his testimony to substantiate his plea of set-off, ... .1.1 . the justice decided, that in order to sustain his plea, it was . necessary tor him to show a mdgment and execution before another justice.

<p>THIS was an action of assumpsit, against the • defendants,, as' endorséis of a promissory ’note. ,. The-cause was tried béfore fifr. Justice Yates, at the, Seneca circuit, in June, 1816.</p> <p>The note in question was, executed by William Low, dated the 26th of May, 1315, and payable to the defendants, si? months after date, for. 427 dollars and 19 cents. The.plaintiff proved a demand made at the house of the: maker of the note, upon his agent, (the maker being absent,) on the 30th of Nóveme her, next after the date of the note,, and his refusal to pay. • ' , . ^ , The same, witness, who proved the demand and’ refusal, also Pr?ved that he' sent a notice thereof to the defendants by the next after the demand was made, and produced, and offeredjo read, in evidence,'a copy of the, notice which was made at the time ..of- mating the. original. The defendants’ counsel objected to reading the copy, unless notice had been given to °£,produce the original,'but the objection was overruled by the' judge, and the copy-permitted to beread. The plaintiff having-rested his. cause, the counsel for the defendants then moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that, the demand upon the maker of the, note ought to .have been made On the 29 th day of November,' next after the ..date of it; but the judge overruled thfe objection, and. the jury, by his direction) found a. verdict-for the .plaintiff.</p> <p>The case was submitted to the court without argument.</p>

THIS was an action of ejectment, for the recovery of part of lot No. 82., in the town of Homer. The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Spencer, at the last Courtlandt circuit.

IN ERROR, from the court of common pleas of the county of Oneida. The defendant in error brought an action of slander in the court below against the plaintiff in error. The declaration con- . i ° . 1 . . , tamed two counts; in the first it was alleged, that the deiendant had charged the plaintiff with stealing his shingles; and in the second count, that he had said that the plaintiff and one Tucker had stolen his shingles.

IN ERROR, from the court of common pleas of the county of Ulster. The plaintiff in error brought an action of trespass, de bonis asportatis, against the defendant in the court below, for taking and driving away his hog. The cause was tried at the December term, 1815, of the court below.

<p>, IN ERROR, on certio.rari to a- justice’s'courts: • .</p> <p>The defendants in error brought,an action1 in the coui't below against the plaintiff'ih error, for necessaries furnished by them, to his" infant son. On the trial it appeared that the son-of the-defendant below came to1 the store of- the plaintiffs below, and purchased a coat lor himself; but there was no evidence that it was done with his father’s consent. ; The defendant proved that? his son lived in his family, and was-comfortably and. decentlyelóthéd, according to his circumstances. A. verdict and judgment wpre given for the plaintiffs in the. court below.- :</p>

,I.N ERROR, on certiorari to a justice’s, court. The plaintiff in error, who was also plaintiff in the court below, brought an action of trespass, de bonis aspor'tatis, against the defendant, and, being a non-resident, the suit was commenced by ,,, . warrant, on his depositing five dollars with the justice, as security.

IN ERROR, from the court of common pleas of ti e county of Franklin, This was an action of trespass on the case, brought by the defendants in error against the plaintiff in. error.' The declaration contained two counts : 1. A count in trover, for five yoke of oxen and five cows. 2.

THIS was an action oí assumpsit. ■ The declaration contained two counts: 1.

<p>a promissory leged,inthede* have- Leen drawn by the defendant, by « Christopher ■ ceninCTidence %cirta.vmb provéa thatthlf rnt^s usuafmpde ■name, it8 was was no vari ’</p> <p>a defendant cannot allege at the trial, that there is a vananee between 3ervedatami the cord-^thejudí edhy the8record tiiere’is a^n'ate^ rial variance, the party must cburl to set adipt. ‘ ver</p>

IN ERROR, on certiorari to a justice’s court. When the jury in the court below retired to deliberate upon their verdict, the justice, at the request of the jury, went into the room with them, to answer certain questions proposed to him by the jury, but was not accompanied by the parties, nor had obtained the consent of the plaintiff in error, who, however, knéw that the justice was going, and did not object to it.

THIS was an action of ejectment,- brought -to recover part e£ Lot No. 196., in Klock and Nellis’s - patent, situate in the town of Palatine, An the' county of'Montgomery.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, for use and occupation, which was tried before Mr. Justice Van Ness, at the Oneida . . . circuit, m June, 1816. ' 7 t The premises in question, were situate in the town of Rome, in the county of Oneida, and were part of certain lands which had been held by one Hawes, under a lease for three lives, who died leaving several children, his heirs at law, and a widow, who was now the wife of the plaintiff, whose dower was assigned to her in…

<p>a note wao drawn payable to A; and &, edCtoTseriwin!e Dtere°fie!i b”b Sorsed by a! fiisedto’endorle ceiveAsecurity for his indemni ' fication, which ^ it was agreed to give, rahd the nóte was sold to D„ at adiscouñt óf 20 per cebt. It being understood between B. and G. that part of the money thus raised shoulc) be lent to B.; B. drew a note payable to C. orbearer, for the amount actually received by him from C., with aii addition-qf.20 per cent, on that amotint, and interest thereoá from the date, which last mentioned note, was deposited with Aás bis security: in an action by- A agáiust B. upon this note, it was held that it wás usurious and void.</p> <p>An attorney or counsel- cannot.testify a» to communications made by a client,-whilst the relation of attorney or counsel and client subsists; -But if aftdr that relatioirhas ceased, the former client r.epeattó his attorney, voluntarily* and without any artifice being Used, by the latter,-communications previously made, the attorney is a com? petentwitnéss as to such-subsequent communications. * ' . .</p>

THIS was an action of ejectment, brought to recover part of lot No. 4., in lot No. 1., in lot No. 13., in the 25th allotment of the patent of Kayaderosseras.

fH BKBOR,.On eer/i.órarí-to a iustice’s-court, ‘ , ' Tfié’ defendant^ in error; who were plaintiffs in the court below, brought an- action against the plaintiff in error,.on-.a.prbmisff alleged to have been made -by’him, for; the maintenance of% bastard child, born of the body of his daughter.

THIS was an action of debt, to recover the penally of 50 dollars, given by the 6th section of the act to protect the fishing in Hudson river, &c. passed the 11th April, 1815, (Scss. 38. ch. 146.,) for a violation of the fourth section of {he act. It was admitted that the defendant, on Sunday, to wit, on the 5th May last, fished with a seine, in Hudson river, in the channel thereof, in the town of Kinderhook, and caught three hundred shad.

<p>THIS was an action of ejectment, brought to recover thirty-four acres of land, in lot No. 124., in the Lunmburgh patent. The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Platt, at the Greene . „ . „ „ „ circuit, in September, 1815.</p> <p>The plaintiff produced in evidence the Lunenburgh patent, dated the 25th of May, 1667, which, by deed dated the 30th of _ . T July, 1750, was divided between the proprietors, of whom J ohannes Provoost and Abraham Staats had purchased one third ; and in the partition 43 lots had fallen to the share of Abraham Provoost, Sybrant Van. Schadk, and Jacob Roseboom, who were the representatives of Johannes Provoost and Abraham Staats. The representatives of Provoost and Staats, by deed of partiton, dated the 7th of August, in the 24 Geo. II. divided their third of the patent, excepting thirteen lots, of which-Iot No. 124. is one, which it was declared should remain undivided, one half thereof belonging to Provoost, and the other half to Roseboom and Van .Schaak. Abraham Provoost, by deed, dated the 10th of August, 1750, conveyed his lands, in the Lunenburgh patent, to “ls eldest son and heir at law, Johannes, who died, leaving four brothers; Samuel, the eldest, and heir at law, Hendrick, Jacob, and Isaac and Samuel had issue, Hendrick and Catharine, of whom there are no descendants living. Abraham Provoost, one of the lessors of the plaintiff is the son of Jacob Provoost, and is the only one of the family now surviving.. The title of the other lessors of the plaintiff, as far as can be collected from the case, it is unnecessary to- state.</p> <p>The defendant gave in evidence the will of Johannes Provoost, dated November 5th, 1751, who devised all his estate to Catharine, his wife, during her widowhood, remainder to his four brothers, Hendrick, Samuel, Jacob, and Isaac, in fee. Sarah, who married John Low, was the daughter and heir at law of Jacob Provoost. The defendant also gave in evidence a deed, dated June 25th, 1772, from Catharine Provoost, widow of Johannes Provoost, Samuel Provoost, and Isaac Provoost, to John Low, and Killian Van Rensselaer, which recited that disputes had arisen between the devisees of Johannes Provoost, and John Low, and Sarah, his wife, as to her proportion in the Lunenburgh patent, 'and that, for the purpose of settling these disputes, ¿Low- and his wife had, by deeds of lease and release,. Bearing, date the 3d and 4th of February, 1772, granted to Kill¡an Van Rensselaer all their interest in the patent, in trust, and -to the uses in the said deedofréléásé mentioned;-,the.parties then covéhanted, that the parties of the second part were eutitled, under Johannes Provoost, and otherwise,: to one equal •undivided fourth part of one equal undivided sixth: part, and also to one equal sixth undivided part of one other equal-undivided sixth- part of the lands granted, by the. said letters patent j and that Robert Yates, Nanning Vischcr, and GijsbcrtMavsdlis, jun,, find any two of them, were authorized, with all convenient speed, to locate and reduce to severalty, the several undivided tracts above granted, in, from,, and out of, the lands now in the .tenure and occupation of the parties of the, first part, their tenants or assigns, and out of the lands parcel of the said tract,' •which,' by any former division,, had beén’ allotted to the parties' of the first part, or to any person under whom they claim or derive title to the said tract, and out of such- parts of the said tract, -which had, bn such division,: been allotted to the rights .of Johannes Provoost, the grandfather of his son, Abraham Pro»* Boost,-or any persons claiming under them; and in case of de~ ficiency, then such deficiency to be taken out of such lands as remain in common and undivided in the said patent. The defendánt then gave in evidence a deed from Killian Van Rmssé< iaer to Casper I. Hallenbcck, -for lot No. 81., in the. .patent of Lunenburgh, dated September 2.1st, 1774, and the will of Cas» per I. Ilallenbeck, dated September 4th, 1795, by which he devised to the defendant, his Son.</p> <p>It was proved by John C, Hallenbtck, that the defendant’s father was in possession of the land which he occupied, in lot No.' 124., 23 yéars before the trial, and claimed under a purchase' from Loto. It also appeared that Peter Bastían, a negro, and one' Egbert sm, were in possession each of a few - acres of the premises, when the defendant’s father entered. They held un»der Johannes Provoost, arid paid their rent in mowing and work, arid the defendant’s- father obtained the possession from them. At the time the defendant’s father took possession of the premi-mises, Isaac Prmóost lived within a mile and a'quarter of jot Nó.:, 124,., and Abraham Provoost lived within two: miles, and afterwards, within a quarter of a miler\ -.■■•'</p> <p>The plaintiff, on the trial* abandoned his claim to that part of the premises which was originally possessed by the defendant’s father, in lot No. 81., and a verdict was taken for the r.esidue* subject to the opinion of the court.</p>

UN ERROR, on certiorari to a justice’s court. The plaintiff in error, who was also plaintiff in the court below, brought an action against the defendant, who was a constable, for the escape of one Johnson, ft appeared on the trial, that the plaintiff obtained judgment against Johnson, in a justice’s court, on the 9th of May, 1815; that an execution was issued on the same day, and put into the hands of the defendant, whereon JoknsQnV?as arrested, and permitted by the…

. THIS was an actibn of ejectment, .brought to , recover lot Ho. 94., in the town of Brutus, now Mentz, in the county of Cayuga, in The military tract.

IN ERROR, on certiorari to the justices’ court in the city of New-York. The plaintiff in error brought an action against the defendant in error in the court below, and declared against him as surety tor breorge Jtiefnch and George Chapman, on á cértáln voyage, an(^ demanded forty-dollars, On the ground that the said seamen not proceeded on- that voyage. The' declaration also con-tain^d a count for money had and received.

.THIS was art áction of assumpsit iipotí the-eommon money-counts. The defendant pleaded non-assumpsit and non assump* sit infra sex annas. The cause was tried at the Rensselaer circuit, in June, 1816.

<p>THIS was an action of ejectment, brought to recover lands lying in the artillery patent, in the town of Fort Ann, in the county of Washington, and which was commenced in August vacation, in the year 1807. The case was tried before Mr. Justice Fan Ness, at the Washington circuit, in June, 1810.</p> <p>rr, i . The lessors of the plaintiff claimed under letters patent to Joseph Walton and 23 others, dated the 24th of October, 1764, for a tract of land containing 24,000 acres, known by the name of. the artillery patent. This tract was conveyed by deed, dated the 25th of October, 1765, by Joseph Walton, Alexander Colden, and the other proprietors, to Abrahctm Walton, by which it was recited, that the parties of the first part having, by sundry , , mesne conveyances, become seised ot the whole tract, m the pro-J , ..... . portions therein staled, had agreed to divide the tract into 250 lots, and to release the whole to the party of the second part, his heirs and assigns, to stand seised of the several lots drawn to the share-.of each of the parties of the first part, for their respective useS), ¡n fCCj ant[. designated' the several lots-which'had been drawn to the-share of each of the parties ofithe first part ; an'd the party of the5 second part covenanted.to. execute releasesin fee, to each of the parties of the first part of their respective lots when required. •. Abraham Wallo,n died several5 years be? fore the commencement of this .action, and the lessors of' the plaintiff, excepting Golden,..are his heirs at lav/. -Alexander Golden died in 1775, leaving Richard N-. Golden his" heir, who died in-1777, leaving .Alexander-R. Coldenjcñs•fc'ei*,-who'died in 1796, leaving Cadwalladér R. Colden, one of the lessors Of-the plaintiff,, his only brother and heir, Alexander R. Golden Was about 22 years old when he died, and GadzualladerR. Colden was bom in 1775 pr 177-6. It Was admitted on dhe trial, : that the patent wqs generally settled and held under, and according to, the partition made by the proprietors.</p> <p>It.was proved by the defendant,, that on the 27th. of May, |767, one Jane, took possession .of 1OQ ;acres of land, .on the north pat’t of lot lío, 15.-, in the artilierypatent, (in which the. premises in-, question are included;, .and which, in the partition of the patent, had fallen, to theshare Of Ale$anderCólden;) under. ,á lease, in fee from one Anthony Fpnniifgton,.reserving.a pepper?corn rent. • Jane .Rag/and.died in4778, and ppevious'tq fief death, gave1.the land she. claimed, ,by paro], to -her son, Jumt? PerMnsy (she,, howevep, having other children,) who went into possession, and epntinuéd;iq.-possession yntil the.War, when fie joined die army Of the United Staves, and one or fWO years after thp war, resumed the possession for about 11 years,. -The. Original lease to Jawe Ragland was-burnit with^Per^s’s house, gfter the war- In 1787 or. 178$, PerA%s,rs ppgs.essjon wasin'partenclosedby fences,-principally ma4eby;.the owners pf t^e ad? ■joining, lots, upon thépp outer lines, and the -'residue, by a fence qf and,lopped . sPef^tnS'-^twh at that timej about g,Q acres improved, and had since, extended his improvement to. §0 op 40 acres, Pepsins, by .deed dated, the 30th of Augy,st,t. |798, conveyed the'iand which he. claimed to pne SolmowWik U§rn§., who took possession at thq: time pf his purchase, Wili%ms, by deed dated the 20th : o’f October, 1803, conveyed 76 gpres, 12 pqds, and 75 poles, tp Roswell GamApph, whp, by deed ¿gtfd the-1st ;qf 1 $04, conveyed.the same -to the'eje? fgadq-nti; It g|tg}t|e4j tfe»f P&t&M 1üé?.'-^safgs^d' qf -the premises, in the manner above stated, about 21- years previous to the commencement of this suit. ,</p> <p>A verdict was taken for the plaintiff* subject to the opinion of the court, on a case containing the above facts,,.</p>

IN ERROR, on certiorari to a justice’s court. The defendant in error brought an action against the plaintiff in error in the court below, which was commenced by warrant, the plaintiff below having first given the security required from non-residents.

THIS was an action of ejectment: brought to recover lot 39., in the town of Manlius, in the county of Onondaga* The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Yates, at the Onondaga circuit, 1X1'June,… Held: to go to Rhinebeck to ascertain whether Shultze had been a soldier during the war, and that Shultze told him that he was chosen a lieutenant at West Point and at White Plains, but had never served at the Northward, nor had been a private during the war.

THIS was an action of ejectment, tried before Mr. Justice J Van Ness, at the Columbia circuit, in January. 1815. The lessor of the plaintiff is the son and heir of Maryehe, (Mari«,) a daughter of Peter Martin Van Burén, who was married to Jerome Van Valkenburgh. She died before the revolutionary war, and her husband after the war. Peter, the lessor’s elder brother, died before the war, without issue.

THIS was an action of debt for an escape, brought against the defendant, sheriff of Rensselaer county.

THIS was an action of eiectment, tried at the Montgomery o 7 O ,7 circuit, August 29th, 1815, before Mr. Justice Yales. ’ ° 7 The premises in question were 16 or 20 acres of land, and a dwelling-house thereon, in Minden. The lessors of the plaintiff are six of the heirs at law of John Henry Moyer, deceased, and the defendant, John Henry Moyer, is the other .heir.

THIS was an action of ejectment for lot No. in Fabius, set down to be tried, at the Onondaga circuit, in June, 1816, and the facts being agreed to by the parties, the following case .was submitted to the court.

THIS cause came before this court on a writ of error to the supreme court* |See the case reported 11 Johns. Rep9 365. 376.1 1 u * * 4 The action was for the recovery of certain lands in Pláttekitt, in the county of Ulster. The following facts were found by qle special verdict.

IN ERROR, to the supreme court on a bill ox exceptions, in which were set forth the pleadings and demurrer, that judgment was given for the plaintiff below upon the demurrer, and the proceedings, at the trial, where a verdict was found for plaintiff for 107,369 dollars and 43 cents damages. The proeeedings of the court below, after the trial, upon the bill of ex- . t were not stated. 11. • x • « ir* The declaration, which was m trespass, contained hte counts t 1 1.