Volume 15 — United States Reports

Held: that “ the conduct of the salvors in taking the goods out of the possession of the revenue officers, though by legal process, was improper.” This intimation *4 is the stronger, as the wrecked goods were.adjudged not liable to duties; and it is fortified by the opinion of a learned judge in' the supreme court of New-York, upon an analogous question, d *5 Mr. Hunter, contra. 1.

James Greenleaf instituted a suit in that court on p. promissory note executed by the defendant, who pleaded the general issue. On the trial, the defendant gave in evidence a deed executed by. Pratt, Francis, and others, by James Greenleaf, their attorney, conveying to him a lot of ground in the. city of Washington, for the purchase of which the promissory note in the declaration mentioned was given.

the supreme judicial court of the state of Massachusetts. This was an action of trover brought in the state court, in which Walter, the plain tiff in that court, recovered of Otis, the defendant in that court, damages for the conversion of sundry articles constituting the cargo of a vessel called the Ten Sisters..

Tile plaintiffs in error brought an ejectment in that court for 5,000 acres of land, in possession of the defendant, Ragan, and on the trial gave in evidence a grant from the State of North Carolina, of 40,000 acres, comprehending the lands for which the suit was instituted.

Held: possessed a power which legally survived his principal. Under this assignment it was that the negotiation was effected, and not by virtue of any pow-C er derived to him from the supposed assent of the executrix. Moreover,.admitting the consent of the< executrix, it is still doubtful whether any change of security did in fact take place.

Held: that he was personally'liable on the covenant.. Su where, a com *57 mittee for a Turnpike corporation contracted under their own hands and seals, describing themselves as a committee, they were held personally responsible. Tibbetts v. Walker, 4 Mass. Rep. 596 .

<p>(common law.)</p> <p>A letter, written within a reasonable time before or after the date of a bill of exchange, describing it in terms not to be mistaken, and . promising to accept it, is, if shown to the person who afterwards takes the bill on the credit of the letter, a virtual acceptance binding the person who makes the promise.'</p>

This was the case of a Spanish schooner captured on the 18th of October, 1814, by Mr. Shields, a purser ih the navy, commanding an armed barge, in the sendee, of the United States, ostensibly bound yrith a cargo of crates and dry-goods, on a voyage from Jamaicano Pensacola, but in fact in. pursuance of an asserted change of destination, then in proseeutionof a voyage to New-Orleans.

Held: that the master, having acted with good faith, was not responsible for the escape of the slaves in a foreign port,, which was one of the contingent termini of the voyage, and, consequently, within the hazards to which the owner knew his property might be exposed; although it was doubtful whether the master had strictly pursued his orders in going to such port, Error to the circuit court for the district of Columbia.

Held: that this Was sufficient evidence to prove the sale and delivery of the goods-. Feb. 12th. Error to the circuit court for the district of Virginia. This cause was argued by Mr. Lee, for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Swann, for the defendant in error. *112 Feb. 15th.

Held: that driving living fat oxen, &c. on foot is not a transportar lion thereof within the true intent and meaning of the same act. This cause was argued by the Attorney General, for the United States, and by Mr. Hopkimon, for the defendant. Feb. 12th. Feb. 26th.

Appeal froto the circuit court for the district of Massachusetts. The British schooner Mary, whereof Charles 'Thomas, jr. a British subject, domiciled at St. Johns, New Brunswick, was late owner and master, sailed under convoy from St. Johns,.

That the Sap Pedro departed, on the 1st February, 1813, from Mobile for the island of Jamaica, a colony of Great Britain, in violation of the embargo act of the 22d December, 1807, and the several acts supplementary thereto; of the non-intercourse act of the 1st of March, 1809 ; and of the laws of the United States. 2d. That sundry goods, wares, and merchandise were imported in the ' San Pedro, into the district of Mobile on the first day of May, 1813, from the said island…

This vessel, belonging to citizens of the United States, and laden with a cargo of flour also .belonging to citizens of the same, was captured on the 15th day of October, 1812, on a voyage from Alexandria to Cadiz, with a license or passport of protection from the British admiral, Sawyer.

A libel was filed against this vessel in the district court of New-York, March, 1809, for a breach of the act of the 22d of December, 1807, laying an embargo, and the several acts supplementary thereto, alleging, that she proceeded from Baltimore, without any clearance or permit, bound on a voyage to Exuma, one of the Bahama islands, where she took in a tíargo of six thousand bushels of salt, with which she returned to New-York.

This ship, sailing under Russian colours, left Riga on the 2d of September, 1813, for London, where she arrivéd; ^nd from thence sailed on the IBtli of November, 1813, in ballast, on a voyage to the West-Indies; took a British convoy at' Portsmouth, in England, and proceeded with it to Barbadoes, and thence to Jamaica.

From the papers found on board these vessels, and the preparatory examinations in the court below, it appeared that they were foreign vessels, having on hoard, as was admitted on all sides, false and simulated Swedish papers.

Laidlaw v. Organ, 15 U.S. (2 Wheat.) 178 (1817), is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that established the rule that buyers need not disclose advantageous information to sellers. This rule should not be confused with either caveat emptor—a rule placing the burden of due diligence on the purchaser of goods—or caveat venditor—the rule that vendor sales come with an implied warranty.

This was a bill in chancery, filed m the circuit court for the district of Tennessee, by the appellant, against the heirs of the late Major-General Greene.

<p>.(local law.).</p> <p>It is essential to the validity of an entry, that the land intended iff be appropriated should be so described as to give notice of the appropriation to subsequent locators.</p> <p>In taking the distance from one point to another on a large river, the measurement is to be with its meanders, and not in a direct line.</p> <p>In ascertaining a place to be found by its distance from another place, the vague words “about” or “nearly” and the like, are to be rejected, if there.are no other words rendering it necessary to retain them: and the distance mentioned is to be taken positively.</p> <p>Entries made in a wilderness, most generally referring to some prominent and notorious natural object, which may direct the attention to the neighbourhood in which the land is placed, and then to some particular objeGt exactly describing it; the first of. these is denominated the general or deécriptive call, and the last the particular or locaHve call of the entry. Reasonable certainty is required in both : if tne descriptive call will not inform a subsequent locator in what neighbourhood he is to search for the land, the entry is déffective, unless the particular-object is one of sufficient-notqriefy. If, after having reached the neighbourhood, the locative object caunotbe found within the limits of the descriptive calls, the' entry is also defective, A single call may,.at the same time, be of.such a nature (as, for example, a spring of general notoriety) as to constitute within itself both a call of description and of location ; hut, ■'if this call be accompanied with another, such as a marked tree at the spring, it seems to be required that both should he satisfied-</p> <p>The call for an unmarked tree of a kind which is common in the neighbourhood of a place sufficiently described by the other parts of the entry to be fixed with certainty may be considered as an immaterial cali.</p> <p>Therefore, where the entry was in the following words, “ D. P. enters 2,000 acres on a treasury warrant on the Ohio, about twelve rñiles below the mouth of Licking, beginning at a hiccory and sugar tree on the river bank, running up the river from thence 1,060 poles, thence at right angles-to the same, and back for quantity,” it was held that the call for a sugar tree might be declared immaterial, and the location be sustained on the other calls.</p> <p>The entry was decreed to be surveyed, beginning 12 miles below the mouth of Licking on the bank of the Ohio, and running up that river 1,060 poles; which line was to form the base of a rectangular parallelogram to include 2,000 acres of land.,</p>

Rut as the points made were not considered by the court, .and judgment was pronounced on other grounds, the argument is omitted.

The ship Pizarro, under Spanish colours, was captured on the 23d of July, 1814, by the private armed schooner Midas, Alexander Thompson, commander* on a voyage from Liverpool to Amelia island, and. brought into the port of Savannah for adjudication. Prize proceedings were instituted in the district court of Georgia against the ship and cargo,, and a claim was duly interposed by Messrs.

This was an action of debt commenced in the district court in Pennsylvania, by the United States against the defendant in error,'to recover a penalty alleged to have been incurred for using a still, and distilling spirituous liquors, without having a license therefor, as required by an act of congress passed on the 24th of July, 1813.

Held: that the power of naturalization is exclusively in congress but that the treaty of amity and commerce between the United States and France, of 1778, art. 11, enabled the subjects of France to purchase and hold lands in the United States.

<p>This is the same cause which is reported in the first volume of these Reports, p. 408, and which was ordered to farther proof upon the points there stated.</p>

This was an information for a violation of the non-importation acts. On the part of the appellants it was alleged, that the vessel, (which sailed from Portland, in the District of Maine, in April, 1813, and returned to that port, laden , with a cargo of molasses, in the month of August, of the same year,) instead of going to Cumana, her ostensible port of destination, had proceeded to Guadaloupe, then a British possession, and there took in her cargo.

This. was. a bill in equity, filed by the complainants in the court below, (who are the defendants here,) founded on a bond, conditioned for the conveyance of 5,000 acres of land; to be sitpated within certain fcpunds of the state of Ohio; for which land 9. conveyance was prayed, if tfie defendant was possessed of, or had the means of Acquiring, the title thereto, and, in the event of such inability on the part of the defendant to comply specifically with his Stipulation, a…

Held: that this Verdict, being certain to a common intent, was sufficient to sustain a judgment. It was also held that a jojnt judgment against the tenants fpr the costs, as well as the land, was correct., March 8th. This cause was argued by Mr. Hughes, for . the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. M. B. Hardin &nd Mi*. Jones, for the defendant in error. *307 March 13th.

Held: that if any one or more of the joint owners be under the dis.ability of infancy or coverture, it brings the entry within the saving of the proviso as to all the other owners. Distinction between this statute and a statute of limitations of personal actions.

Harper and Mr* Swartn, for the' appellants; and by Mr. Winder ah,d Mr. Jones,, for the respondents. - The schooner Anna Maria, belonging to citizens of the United States, sailed from Alexandria, on the 27th of September-, 1812, laden with a cargo also belonging to American citizens, and bound to St. Bartholomews, a neutral island. On the 16th of October, the schooner made the Virgin islands, where she,continued, it being palm, until the 19th.

The appellee filed his bill in that court, stating that, m the year 1779, a number of persons amongst whom was the defendant below, who is the appellant in this court, employe„d him, the complainant,, to locate lands for them, in the then district of Kentucky; that he received from the defendant certain land warrants to the amount of 25,000 acres, which he located for him on the 20th of May, 1780.

district of Massachusetts. This ' schooner, with her cargo, the property of the claimant, on a voyage from Baltimore to Bordeaux, fell, in with the President and Congress frigates on the night of the 16th October, 1813. Commodore Rodgers was the commander of the President frigate, and the commodoré and commander of the squadron composed of those two ships, then in company. Captain Smith, deceased, and charged in the libel as a co-defendant, commanded the Congress.

This was a writ of error upon a judgment of the supreme judicial court of Massachusetts, rendered in an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained three counts, to which the general issue was pleaded, and upon two of these counts the jury found a general verdict for the defendant, (the plaintiff in error,) and upon the third count a general verdict, with damages for the original plaintiff.

as register.of the land-office of the United States, at Zanesville, in the state of Ohio, commanding him to enter the application of the plaintiff, for certain tracts of land according to the provisions of the 9th section of the act of Congress, of the 10th May, 1800, entitled “An act providing for the sale of the lands of the United States, in the territory of the United States, northwest of the Ohio, and above the mouth of Kentucky river.” A rule to show cause had been…

stated, that there was an affidavit anr néxed to the record, which was taken under the order for farther proof, in the court below, but which, not arriving until after the decree of condemnation was pronounced, was ordered by the circuit court, to be transmitted, de bene esse, for the consideration of this court.

This was a suit in chancery, brought by the ap» pellants against the respondent, in the circuit, court of the District of Columbia, for the county of Alex ándria; the complainants, in théir. bill, stated that the president, directors, and company of the Bank of the United States, by their deed, assigned to Thomas Willing, John Perot, and James S. Cox, their executors, administrators, and assigns, all -and . singular the mortgages, judgments, suits, bonds, bills, notes,…

<p>(constitutional law.)</p> <p>The jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the United States extends to a . case between citizens of Kentucky, claiming lands exceeding the value of five hundred dollars, under different grants, the one issued by the state of Kentucky, and the other by the state of Virginia, but upon warrants issued by Virginia, and locations founded thereon prior to the separation of Kentucky from Virginia. It is the grant which passes the legal'title to lhe land; and if the controversy is founded upon the conflicting grants of different states, the judicial power of the courts of the United States extends to the case, whatever ,may have been the equitable title of the parties prior to the grant,</p>

<p>, , ( Chancery)</p> <p>The answer of one defendant to a bill in chancery cannot be used as evidence against his co-defendant; and the answer of an agent is not evidence against his principal, nor are his admissions in pais, unless where they are a part of the res gesta.</p> <p>Where a cause is set down for hearing on the bill, answer, and exhibits, without other pleadings, the whole,of the answer must be considered as true.</p>

Held: that debt will lie in favour of a payee against the drawer in case of non-payment by the acceptor. (Hard’s case, Salk. 23. Hodges v. Steward, Skinn. 346.; and see Bishop v. Young, 2 Bos. & Pull 78.) The reasons, then, assigned for the decision in Hardres are not satisfactory; and it deserves consideration that it was made at a time when the principles respecting mercantile contracts were not generally understood.

Held: that no person could acquire a legal title to any shares, except under a regular transfer, according to the rules of the bank; and if any person takes an equitable assignment, it must be subject to the rights of the bank, under the act of incorporation, of which he is bound to take notice.

United States v. Barker, 15 U.S. (2 Wheat.) 395 (1817), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court upholding the common law tradition that private citizens may not demand costs from the federal government. The case involved a motion for costs filed against the United States Government and resolved the previously unanswered question of whether courts could award costs against the United States federal government. The Court's opinion read, in its entirety, "The United States never pay costs." Jurists have remarked that Chief Justice John Marshall's six-word opinion is one of the shortest Supreme Court cases ever written.

Held: that the Word insolvency, mentioned in the dpty act of 1790, ch. 35. sec. 45,; and repeated in the act of 1797, ch. 74. sec. 5., and of 179?, ch. 128. sec., 65. means a legal insolvency, which, whenever it occurs, the right of preference arises to the United States as well as ?n the other specified cases to which the acts of 1797 and 1799 have extended the cases of insolvency.