Volume 20 — United States Reports

<p>A warrant and survey authorize the proprietor of them to demand the legal title, but do not, in themselves, constitute a legal title: until the consummation of the title by a grant, the person who acquires an • equity holds a right, subject ta examination.</p> <p>Where the register of the land office of Virginia had, by mistake, given a warrant for military services in the Continental line, on a certificate authorizing a warrant for services in' the State line, and in recording it, pursued the certificate, and not the warrant, it was held ' that this Court could pot support a prior entry and survey, on a warrant thus issued by mistake, against a senior patent.</p> <p>’ Where the plaintiffs seek to set aside the legal title, because they have the superior equity, it is consistent with fjie principles of the Court to rebut this equity, by any circumstances which may impair it: and the legal title cannot be made to yield to an equity founded on the mistake of a ministerial officer.</p>

Held: that it must be surveyed so as to extend the second line of the grant such a distance on the course called for as would cross Duck river to the opposite bank. • This cause was argued by Mr. Law, a for the *8 plaintiff in error, and by Mr. White, b for the defendant in error* a He cited 1 Cooke's Tenn. Rep. 146. 1 Heyw. Rep, 253. 2 Heyw. Rep. 75. 130. 179. 4 Wheat.

Held: that this was not intended as liquidated damages lor the breach of that single covenant only, hut applied to all the covenants made by the same party in that agreement; that it was m the nature of a penalty, and could not he set off in an action brought by the party to recover the price of the work; Feb 12th An agreement to perform certain wojk within a limited time, under a certain penalty, is-nit o be construed as…

<p>The owner of a survey made in conformity with his entry, and not interfering with any other person’s right, may abandon his survey after it has been recorded.</p> <p>The proviso in the act of March 2, 1807, c. 76. s. 1. which annuls all locations made on lands previously surveyed, applies to subsisting surveys, to those in which an interest is claimed; not to those which have been abandoned, and in which no person has an interest.</p>

A writ of right brings into controversy only the titles of the parties to the suit, andis acomparison of those titles; and either party may therefore prove any fact which defeats the tide of the other, or shows it never had a legal exisience, or has been parted with.

This was an action of assumpsit', brought by the defendants in error, the Bank of Alexandria, against the plaintiffs in error, the administrators of William Byrd Page, deceased. The declaration contained two counts. The first was on a promissory note, which was set forth, as made by William Hodgson, and payable on demand to the intestate, Page, who endorsed it to the Bank of Alexandria, where it was discounted, and the money paid to Hodgson.

<p>This Court has authority to issue a habeas corpus, where a person is imprisoned under the' warrant or order of any other Court of the United States.</p> <p>But this Court has no appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases, confided to it by the laws of the United States, and cannot revise the judgments of the Circuit Courts, by writ of error, in any case where a party has been convicted of a public offence.</p> <p>Hence the Court will not grant a habeas corpus, where a party has been committed for a contempt adjudged by a Court of competent jurisdiction.</p> <p>In such a case, this Court will not inquire into the sufficiency of the cause of commitment.</p> <p>The case of Crosby, Lord Mayor of London, 3 Wils. 188. commented on, and its authority confirmed.</p>

This suit was brought by the appellant in the Circuit Court, for the county of Washington, for the purpose of subjecting a tract of land, lying within that county, which was sold by the plaintiif, Bayley, to the defendant, Greenleaf, to the payment ofso much of the purchase money as still remains due.

<p>This Court will not grant a rehearing in an equity, cause, after it has been remitted to the Court below to carry into effect the decree of this Court, according to its mandate.</p>

Held: that if the lessee of a future term dies, and the prior term expires, then the lessor enters, and levies a fine, and five years pass, and then B. takes administration to the lessee; he shall have five years afterwards \for no one had title till administration. *94 Allusion has been made to the doctrine of the common law, by which the heir is liable for the specialty debts of his ancestor, so long as the lands remain…

This suit was brought by the appellants, who were plaintiffs in the Circuit Court, to obtain a conveyance for twelve nineteenths of a tract of land lying in the state of Ohio, containing 1900 acres, for which a patent was issued in December, 1814, to the defendants, the heirs of Nathaniel Massie. The other defendants were purchasers from him.

<p>It is a rule at law, and in equity, chat a party must recover on the strength of his own title, and not on the weakness, of his adversary’s title.</p> <p>To support an entry, the party claiming under it must show that the objects called for are so described, or are so notorious, that others, by using reasonable diligence, can readily find them.</p> <p>The following entry was pronounced under the circumstances, to be void for uncertainty: “ 7th of August, 1787. Capt. Ferdinand O'Neal enters 1000 acres, fee. on the waters of the Ohio, beginning at the northwest comer of Stephen T. Mason's entry, .1Vo. 054, thence with his line east 400 poles, north 40t> poles, west 400 poles, south 400 poles.” The entry of Stephen T. Mason referred to, being as follows : “7th of August, 1787. Stephen T. Mason, Assignee, &c. enters 1000 acres of land on part of a military warrant, No. 2012, on the waters of the Ohio, beginning 640 poles north from the mouth of the third creek running into the Ohio, above the mouth of the Little Miami liiver; thence running west 160 poles; north 400 poles; east 400 poles; thence to the beginning.”</p> <p>The Ohio and Little Miami Rivers are identified.and notorious objects.</p> <p>But the third creek above the mouth of the Little Miami, is to be taken according to the numdrioal order of the creeks, unless some other stream has by general reputation or notoriety been so considered.</p> <p>Cross Creek, the stream which the party claiming under O’Neal’s entry, assumed for the beginning to run the 640 poles north from the mouth of the third, creek, as called for in Mason’s entry, not being in-fact numerically the third creek above the month of the Little Miami, and their being no satisfactory proof that it had acquired that designation by reputation — the claim was pronounced invalid.</p>

Held: that this Court could not take into consideration any distinct equity arising out of the contracts or transactions of the parties, and creating a new and independent title, but was confined to an examination of the plaintiff’s title as .depending u; jn the construction of the act of Congress.

Held: that such patent, though it must yield to a prior entry, would hold the land against a subsequent entry. The entry, and not the warrant, has always been considered as the commencement of title. The principle is well settled, in other cases, that a patent is unassailable by any title commenced after its emanation ; and we perceive no sufficient reason against applying the principle to this case.

Held: by their agent, Jackson, they, must be considered'as coming in under the New-England *248 Company, and contribute with the other members thereof, in making good what they may lose in consequence of the demands of individuals, who stand in the predicament of Mrs. Gilman, for their proportion of the indemnity actually awarded to those whose certificates of land on the New-England Company were adjudged to be valid.

This was an action of ejectment, brought by the plaintiff in error, in the Circuit Court, against the defendants in error, to recover the possession of lands in the State of Tennessee.

Appeal frooi the Circuit Court of Virginia. This was a libel .filed by the consul of Spain, in the District Court of Virginia, in April, 1817, against eighty nine bales of cochineal, two bales of jalap, and one box of vanilla, originally constituting part of the cargoes of the Spanish ships Santissima Trinidad and St. Ander,and alleged, to be unlawfully and piratically taken out of those, vessels on the high seas by a squadron consisting of two armed vessels called the…

Evans v. Eaton, 20 U.S. (7 Wheat.) 356 (1822), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, chiefly, that a patent on an improved machine must clearly describe how the machine differs from the prior art. It was the fourth published Supreme Court decision on patents, and the second to deal with substantive patent law. It was also the third of four successive Supreme Court cases related specifically to the Oliver Evans flour mill patent.

Evans v. Hettich, 20 U.S. (7 Wheat.) 453 (1822), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a witness's testimony could not be objected to merely because the witness suffered from "fits of derangement", as long as the witness was sane when he testified. The case was the last of four successive Supreme Court cases related specifically to the Oliver Evans flour mill patent, and the second such case to be decided on the same day, following Evans v. Eaton. Altogether the Evans patent generated twelve reported decisions from 1807 to 1822, making it "one of the most litigated patents in U.S. history". Because the arguments in the case addressed the same substantive issues of law as in Evans v.

This was a libel filed in the District Court of Maryland, by the Consul General of Portugal, alleging that a large sum of money in silver and gold coins had been, in the year 1818, taken out of the Portuguese ship Gran Para, then bound on a voyage from Rio Janeiro to Lisbon, by a private armed vessel called the Irresistible, which had been fitted out in the United States, in violation of the neutrality acts; that the said sum of money had been brought within our territorial…

This was á libel filed in the District Court of Maryland, by the Consul of his Catholic Majesty for the port of Baltimore, in behalf of the Spanish owners of certain, goods alleged to have been captured on the high‘seas, and taken out of the Spanish ship Santa Maria, by the privateer Patriota, illegally armed and equipped in the United States.

. This was a libel filed by the Consul Genera! of his Catholic- Majesty, in the District Court of Maryland, against the Spanish ship Arrogante .Barcelonés, and cargo, praying restitution to the original Spanish owners, upon the ground of the same having been captured on the high seas, in violation of the laws, treaties, and neutral obligations of the United States, §nd brought within their territorial jurisdiction.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Maryland.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kentucky.</p>

<p>In real actions, the death of the ancestor,- without having appeared to the suit, abates the suit, and it cannot be revived and prosecuted against the heirs of the original defendant.</p> <p>If the heirs be made parties by order of the Court in which the suit is brought, and judgment is entered against them by default for want of a plea, upon a summons and count against the original defendant, they may sue out a writ of error, and reverse the judgment.</p>

<p>A writ of error will lie from this Court upon the judgments of the Circuit Courts, awarding a peremptory mandamus.</p>

Held: that the title of his heirs was not protected by the treaties. In what cases citizenship may be presumed so as to confirm a title to lands. The doctrine of estoppel, or the principle of legal policy, which forbids a party from denying the title under which he has received a conveyance, does not apply as between vendor and vendee, especially where the latter has not received possession from the former.

<p>An offence against a temporary statute cannot be punished after the .expiration of the act, unless a particular provision he made by law for that purpose.</p> <p>The proviso in the repealing' clause of the Neutrality Act of the 20th of April, 1818, did not authorize a forfeiture under the act of the 3d of March, 1817, (which was included in the repeal,) after the time when that act Would have expired by its own limitation.</p>

This was a suit in Cháncery, instituted in the Court below, by Holbrook and Alexander, against the Union Bank, to recover from the Bank certain shares of road stock, which had been originally subscribed to that Bank by them, and to have ah account of the profits of that stock, and a payment of whatever should be found to be due to them.

This was an attachment sued out by the defendant in error, Brooks, on the 10th February, 1820, to attach the lands, tenements, goods, chattels, and credits of Fitzhugh, an absconding debtor, pursuant to the act of Assembly of Maryland of November, 1795, ch. 56.; levied in the hands of the plaintiff in error, Marbury, who was duly summoned as garnishee, on the 11th February, 1820.

Held: that proof, by a regular survey, of unsoundness at any^subsequent period of the voyage, discharged the underwriters. *582 An exemplification of a condemnation of the vessel in a foreign Court of Vice Admiralty, reciting the certificate of surveyors, that the vessel was unworthy of being repaired, and unsafe and unfit ever to go to sea again, and produced in evidence by the insured tó prove the . loss, is “ a regular…