Volume 13 — United States Reports

ERRfiR to the Circuit Court for the district" of Columbia, for the county, of Alexandria, in an action debt, by the Union Bank against Mandeville, upon bis proinissory note to C. I. Nourse, indorsed to the bank. { On the trial below a special verdict was found which states the following facts: .

On the trial in the Court below, a bill of exceptions was taken, which stated the case as follows: The Plaintiff ’s lessor claims the Sana under a grant from the state of North Carolina, to John Doaelson. dathe 11th of July 1788, for 1500 acres lying on the north side of Tennessee river, opposite to a high bluff of cocks of diverse colors. The.

Kentucky, in a suit in chancery. ERROR to the Circuit Court for the District of The facts of the case, as stated by the chief justice in delivering the opinion of the Court, were as follow: Charles Simms, the Plaintiff in error, having ed a judgment in ejectment for certain lands lying in Kentucky, in possession of the Defendants, for which the said Simms held a patent prior to that under which the Defendants claimed, a bill of injunction was filed by them, praying that lié…

” The bond was executed ®y Speake. the master of the vessel, and by Beverly and Ober the owners of the cargo, in compliance with the lst section or the. act of congress of the. 9lh of January, 1808, entitled “ an set supplementary to the act. entian acf laying embargo on all ships and vessels “ io. the ports and harbors of the.

At the trial below several exceptions wer§ taken, in Which the following facts appeared. The Plaintiff produced a witness, John L, Boss, who being duly admitted and sworn testified, that Messrs. Taber and Gardner, merchants of Rhode island, were holders and' owners of French government bills to a. large amount, which were by them indorsed in blank, and given to, their agertt, the said John L. Ross to take to France for collection.

Terrett v. Taylor, 13 U.S. (9 Cranch) 43 (1815), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled that the Commonwealth of Virginia could not confiscate Episcopal church land.

THIS was an appeal from the sentence of the Circuit Court, for the, district of Massachusetts, which affirmed that of the district Court condemning the brig Short Staple and cargo. ’ r • t The facts of the case- are thus stated by the Chief Justice in delivering the opinion of the Court. This vessel was libelled in the district Court of sachusetfs, in March, 1899, for having violated the cim bargo laws of the United States, by sailing to a foreiga port.

<p>ERROR, to the Circuit Court of the district of West Tennessee, in-an action of ejeqtment, •</p> <p>The facts of the case were thus stated by1 the chief justice in delivering the opinion of the Court:</p> <p>This was an ejectment brought by the Defendant in error m the Circuit Court of the United States for district of West Tennessee.' The plaintiff below claimed under a patent regularly issued by the proper guthority. The Defendant, made litle under a deed, from the collector of the district, reciting a sale of the land as being forfeited by the non payment of and conveying the same to the-purchaser, (in the validity of tins conveyance the wh .1- case d'priids. ' At the trial the Defendant produced his deed, and also á general list of iands owned, jiossessed and o¡ cupied on the first day of October, 1798» in .assessment district No. i.2, in the state of Tennessee, corr. spending with the collection district No. 8, returned, to the office of the late supervisor of the revenue for the district of Tennessee by Edward Douglass, surveyor of the revenue for said assessment district, among, which is the. following: « Grant J<ilin, reputed owrií r in Sumner conn- “ ty on the middle fork' of Bledsoe’s Creek, 640 acres ei of land subject to and included in the valuator*., valu- “ ed at g>2,560, .no possessor, or occupant.*’ He'also produced the tax list furnished by said surveyor ‘to ’’’bomas Martin, collector of the collection district No. 8, in which list said land is described in the same manner as in the said general list, excepting that'the said John Grant is described as possessor or occupant of said GaO acres of land, and said land is included in the list of lands belonging to residents. He also produced the advertisements of the sale of the said lands, mentioned in the said deed to have been made in the. Tennessee Gazette, in which said John Grant is .mentioned only as reputed owner of said land, arid proved, by a witness present at the sale; that the said Henry Brailford, for himself and Daniel Smith, became the purchaser of the said land; and that thejsaid Daniel' and Henry, before the execution of the. said last mentioned deed, assigned their interest in the said land to the Defendant, Richard Parker. But it did not appear that the said collector had, at any time, caused , a copy of the said list, with a statement of the amount of the tax, and a notification to pay the same, to be published for sixty' days in four gazettes'of "the state, if there were so many»'pursuant io the last clause of the 11th section of -the act of congress, entitled “ An act to lay and .collect H a direct tax within the United States,” vol. 4, p. 212. And thereupon the judge instructed the jury that the said sale made by said collector was unauthorized and void, because the said collector had not previously made said last mentioned publication, and because it appeared that the collector proceeded to collect the taxes due on the said land in the manner prescribed by law' for collecting taxes due upon lands where the owner resides thereon, and not in the manner prescribed when the owners' are non-residents and because there is a variance between the surveyor’s books and the collector’s list. The Defendant below excepted to this opinion of the judge, and a verdict and judgment being rendered against him, he has brought the same by wrjt of error . into this Court.</p> <p>There is only one question in this cause, viz : whether the collector, in making sale Of the land under the 13th section of the act, (vol. 4, p. 213 J was bound to publish for 60 days in 4 gazettes of the state, the copies of the lists of the lands taxable, &c. with a statement of the amount of the taxes due thereon, and a notification to pay the. same in 30 days, as required by the ilth section of the same act.</p> <p>We contend that this clause of the section applies only to unoccupied lands of unknown proprietors, and not merely to lands of non-residents. \ Grant, although a non-resident, wa9. á known proprietor.</p> <p>. Such publication is only necessary in case of distress and sale of goods and chattels, which is the only remedy given by the 11th section. If the collector intended to levy the distress, then it was incumbent on him to make the publication. But when the legislature, by the. 13th section, give the remedí by sale of the land itself, they make a different provision and require different* notice óf the sale, and do not refer to the provisions of the llth section; all of which provisions relate only to the. case of distress.</p> <p>The deed from the collector must always recite all the facts necessary to make the title good. In this respect the deed is very defective.</p> <p>The land appears to have belonged to a non-resident. If his residence was known, the law required that he should have personal notice: if not known, he must have presumptive notice by publication as the lith section requires. It cannot be supposed that the law would require less notice to áuthorize a sale of the land, than a distress and sale of chattels. It cannot be supposed that the legislature meant to comprise all the pre-requisites- of a sale of the land in the 13th section$ for that section applies as well to residents as to non-residents, and yet it requires no notice of the amount of the taxes nor «^demand of payment before sale. It is rather to be presumed that the legislature meant that all the preceding requisites should be complied with.</p> <p>It is not necessary that the deed should recite any o£ the facts preceding the sale. They may all be proved by parol.. f-</p>

<p>APPEAL from the sentence of the Circuit Court for the district of Massachusetts, which condemned the brig Struggle, for violation of the non-intercourse act of 28¡h of June., 1809, vol. 10, p. 13, by going, with a cargo, to a prohibited port. '</p>

unty, from whose custody he escaped, . The action was in the common form, and the Defendant pleaded nil debet, upon which issue was joined.. ' Upon the trial the Defendant below took two bills oí exception.

THIS case as, stated by the chief justice in delivering the opinion of the Court, wás as follows: . ' This is a writ of error to a judgment in ejectment rendered in the Circuit Court of the, United States, for the district of West Tennessee.

.10, p. 13, by departing from Philadelphia* bound on a foreign voyage to a permitted port, without having given bond not to go to á prohibited port.

The cause was decided below upon démurer to the pleas of ttie Defendants who were the prinpipal and sureties in the bond’.

All the claims ’in this case, except those of M No. further proof having been produced, the case was submitted to the Court without argument.

THIS was. an appeal from the decree of the Circuit for the- Virginia' district, in a suit1 in chancery brought .By the trustees for the creditors of W. B. Magradee * 1 x ■ co-partnership as Wm. B. Magruder knowledge of ^he deed °f mentioned in- the bill, and hope the' Complainants will be required to make ample proof thereof.

Woodward for the Captors, ('ante, vol. 8, p. 388,) .when leave was given bv this Court, for further proof, by affidavits, on the fo}low¡ng points.' ° As to the citizenship of N. J. Yisscher. . %.

<p>ERROR to the Circuit Court, for the district of Kentucky, in an action of ejectment.'</p>

<p>The answer, £'e¡„D2 dery is not evideuce against' 'his cO'iicfcn* Bant — nor is sRhSrhe”’ haa ¿een discharged1 under sem% "fas" Khode Island »n debts and" contracts chargltandaithough the taf a”debt'4 contracted prihaving country.-1 e Sn</p> <p>Ait answer in thongh ypost five,Sand ii-l-ectly rnspnnsire to allegation in the hill, may be. c^r'nn.suniipy «speci Jiy if aefa&wkey;íbi"íT in tlie nature of things can-pot be within the personal inowTcdgc of A6 dental *by the that h»s testator ’gave mthoWfi to a. Sereba.?eb'is aotaoebMriuiswer to an a-¡^"authority, as will deprive ^ unless subsequent sent of his tes^.awtng* oP such bin. F“n a í^TquivíS t0 ,an .orisiliaJ authority.</p> <p>Semb : that $ discharge una“en’yyCtofot Rhode island (°f ^6)f™™ con’tra(;ts and deman such disPrende ”Po? aii the debtor’s property, will against debt contract-c0uatly.01’e!Si></p>

‘ THIS was an appeal from the decree of the Cireuit Court for the district of Kentucky, in a suit in .chancery, brought by Finley to compel Williams and vvho liaii t!l? elder patent, to cirnvey pertain lands to the Complainant whiph he .claimed by virtue of a >ior settlement, The cause was argued by Pope, for the Appellants, m^d Ciay, for the Apjiellecs, on the of' February, .1813, in the absence of the reporter.

the district of East Tennessee, in an action of ejectment brought by the Plaintiff in error against the. Defendants.

1 Circuit Court for the district of Georgia, in an action oí assumpsit, upon a special premiso to pay interest upon the amount of a decree in chancery, in consideration of forbearance. The Plaintiff below is stated in the declaration to he an alien and British subject, and the Deft ndant a citizen of Georgia.

The American ship Fanny, was laden at Greenock,in Scotland, with a cargo.of British goods, the proper* y of citizens of the United States, and sailed from thence on the 4ih day of July, 1812, after the repeal of tlte orders in council, and before the war between Great Britain and the United States was known in Greenock.

IN this case further proof was ordered at the. last term. The property vested in Dunk am. and Randolph by the shipment. It was made in consequence' r»P, although not strictly in conformity with, their orders; and delivery .to the master of the vessel was tantamount to a delivery to themselves.

Evans v. Jordan, 13 U.S. (9 Cranch) 199 (1815), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that someone who had copied a patented invention after the patent had expired, and before the patent was restored by a private bill, would be liable for damages for patent infringement for any use continuing after the patent was restored. It was the second published Supreme Court decision on patent law, and the first of four Supreme Court cases dealing with the Oliver Evans flour mill patent. Like other Supreme Court patent cases prior to Evans v. Eaton, however, this case did not deal with substantive patent law, but only with issues of statutory construction and infringement liability.

condemned the cargo of the Russian ship Hazard, as British property. The Hazard was captured in December, 1813,. about 6 miles from the land of Amelia Island, by a boat from the United States Flotilla, and carried into St. Mary’s, in Georgia.

By the charter-party, the outward cargo to Amelia Island was to be carried freight free, and the homeward, cargo was'to pay at the rate of three pence halfpenny pound for cotton, and in the same proportion for goods, Contended, that the freight.ought to have-been given according to the charter-party, and not to be ascertained by assessors as ordered in the Court below.

THIS was'acase certified from the Circuit Court for the district of New York, in-which the opinions of the Judges of that Court were opposed' upon tea questions of law arising out of a special verdict.

THIS was a case certified from the Circuit Court for the district of Vermont, the opinions of the judgés of which Court were opposed.

<p>APPEAL from the sentence of the Circuit Court for the district of Connecticut, which reversed that of the District Court, and restored the property to the -,. . ■ x x ■ Claimant.</p>

THIS was a case certified from the Circuit Court for the district of Vermont, in which, upon an.action of ejectment brought by the town of Pawlet to recover possession of the glebe lot, as it was'called, in that town, the opinions of the judges of that Court were opposed ltp0n the question vvjiether judgment, should-be rendered for the Plaintiff or for the 'Defendants, upon a verdiet found, subject to the opinion of the Court, upon the case stated; eejn this cause it is…

1, p. 63, in an action of trespass by Watkins against Otis, a depa ty collector for the district of Barnstable, for taking, carrying away and destroying the Plaintiff’s schooner Friendship and her cargo of cod-fish.

THIS was an appeal from the sentence of the district Court, for the district of New Orleans*, (which has jurisdiction also ,of a Circuit Court.) The facts of the case were stated by Washington, J. in delivering the opinion of the Court, as follows: This is the case,of a libel’filed in the district Court of New Orleans, by Blas Moran, a subject of the king Spain, and'a native and resident of the island of Cuba. setting forth that he is the owner of the brig Alerta and cargo…

THIS case was continued from last term, for further’ Prooí> (&ee ante> 8> P° 456) and was now submitted, upon the further proof produced, without argument.

THIS was an appeal from the sentence of the Circuit Court for the district of Columbia, affirming that of Orphan’s Court for the county of "Washington, Qn the 13tlr of February, 1813, the Appellee, Jane filed in-the Orphan’s Court a petition .or libel setting forth that by an order of that Court on the 11th 'íunc- ±80¡J> the. property of the deceased in her hands was delivered to til© Appellant who had become one of sureties in the administration boudln the year 1803, and…

, . , _ _ , , Hendrickson was surety fariGeorgc Bush, late collector of the customs at Wilmington, in an official bond dated in 1791.

THIS was an appeal from the sentence of the Circuit Court, affirming that.of the .District Court, whicji re stored 1o the Claimants,, neutral Spanish merchants at Teneriffe, 20 pipes of -wine, part of the cargo of the British brig Concord, captured by the American privateer Marengo, in August, 1812, without payment of duties; although the same had been,- by consent of proctors for the parties, sold under an order of. the Court. The cause being submitted without argument;

Held: that being- proved innocent « by the very circumstances of. the case, they.shall not « be bound by the mere principle of law which imposes « on the employer a responsibility for the acts of his *( agent.