Volume 23 — United States Reports

Held: that the remedies in the Courts of the United States, both at common law and in equity, are to be, not according to the fluctuating practice of the Statq Courts, but according to the principles of common law and equity as distinguished and defined in that country from which we derive our knowledge of those principles. The case of Palmer *10 v. Allen a also confirms the principle for which the plaintiffs insisted.

This cause was argued at the last term, by the same counsel with the preceding case of Wayman, Southard, (ante p. 1.) and continued to the present term for advisement.

The Antelope, 23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 66 (1825), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States considered, for the first time, the legitimacy of the international slave trade, and determined "that possession on board of a vessel was evidence of property".

This was a seizure of the schooner Plattsburgh, otherwise called the Maria Gertrudes, on he Coast of Africa, made by the United States ship of war, the Cyane, in the year 1820. The vessel was brought into the port of New-York for ajudication, and a libel of information was filed in the District Court, under the acts of Congress of 1794, c. 11. and of 1800, c. 205. prohibiting the slave trade.

Court of Kentucky. The appellant, Thomas, filed in that Court, at the November term, 1818, a bill to review. and reverse a final decree of the. same Court, pronounced at the May term, 1810, by which the plaintiff in the bill of review, and defendant in the original suit, was decreed to convey to the heirs of John Harvie, the plaintiffs in the original suit, a certain tract of land, which formed the subject of controversy in that suit..

This was a bill in equity, brought by the appellant, Elmendorf, in the Court below, to obtain a conveyance of lands held by the respondents under a prior grant, and under entries which were all older than his entry. But the defendants below relied entirely on their patent; and the case, consequently, depended on the validity of the plaintiff’s entry.

<p>The joinder of improper parties, as citizens of the same State, &c. will not affect the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts in equity, as between the parties who are properly-before the Court, if a decree may be pronounced as between the parties who are citizens of the same State.</p> <p>A decree must be sustained by the allegations of the parties, as well as by the proof? in the cause, and cannot be founded upon a fact not put in issue by the pleadings.</p> <p>Joinder of improper parties, how far affecting jurisdiction of the Court.</p> <p>Mispresentation not averred in the bills. Decree must be secundum allegata.</p> <p>Plaintiff not entitled to relief until he indemnifies the defendants for the obligations incurred by their ancestor on his account.</p>

The appellants filed their bill in equity in the Court below, setting forth, that.

Held: that she took an estate for life only under the will of her husband, J. P. Where there are no words of limitation to a devise, the general rule of law is, that the devisee takes an estate for life only, unless, from the language there used, or from other parts of the will, there is a plain intention to give a larger estate.

Held: that the grantee might levy it in his own name, or, by extent, in the king’s name, “ although he hath not any words in his *259 grant to sue it in the name of the king, as is usual in such cases.” a As to the alleged departure, in pleading, which is relied on as one of the causes’. of demurrer, the objection is, that the replication sets up a cause of action in the, custom-house Officers, whilst the declaration…

<p>Seizures made, jure belli, by non-commissioned captors, are made for the government, and no title of prize, can be derived but' from the Prize Acts.</p> <p>A non-commissioned captor can only proceed in the Prize Court as for salvage, the amount of which is discretionary.</p> <p>The appellate Court will not interfere in the exercise of this discretion, as to the amount of salvage allowed, unless in a very, clear case of mistake.</p> <p>An appeal, under the Judiciary Acts of 1789, c. 20. s. 22. and of 1803, c. 353. [xciii.] prayed for, and allowed within five years; is Valid, although the security was not given until after the lapse of five years.</p> <p>The mode of taking the security, and the time for perfecting it, are within the discretion of the Court below, and this Court will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion.</p>

This is the same case which was reported ante, vol. 5. p. 338.

the Circuit Court of Georgia. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiffs in error, the President, &c. of the Bank of the United States, against the defendants in error, the President, &c. of the Bank of the State of Georgia, in which the plaintiffs declared for the balance of an account stated, and for money had and. received to their use.

Held: that if the. contract was real and not colourable, and if the defendant had no other connexion with C. than that which grew out of the contract, it. did not amount to a breach of the plaintiff’s patent right. *359 March 15th. March 17th.

Held: that Irish interest should be allowed. a If the contract be not void by the laws of the country where it was made, it can never become so by being carried into another country to be enforced; if valid in the country where it was made, it will be valid everywhere, unless some, reason of policy oppose its execution. b Usury is only malum prohibitum, and independent of statutory regulation, the parties may contract for…

Held: that these irregularities did not vitiate the drawing of the lottery, the conduct of the managers having been bona fide, and the affirmance of their acts hot furnishing any inducement to the repetition of the same mistake, nor any motive for misconduct of any description. Quaire, Whether the ticket No. 613, or No. 4,760, was entitled te the prize of 30,003 dollar? *396 March 14th. March 17th.

<p>Where the manager of a lottery, drawn in pursuance of an ordinance of the Corporation of the city óf Washington, gave a bond to the corporation, conditioned “ truly and impartially to execute the duty and authority vested'in him by the ordinance fold, that the person entitled to d prize ticket had no right to bring a suit for the prize against the manager, upon his bond, in the name of the corporation, without their consent.</p>

Held: that the survey was conclusive evidence, under the clause, to discharge the insurers from their liability for the loss. Quiere, How far the State Legislatures may authorize the condemnation of vessels as unseaworthy, by tribunals or boards constituted under State authority, in-the absence of any general regulation made by Congress, under its power of regulating commerce, or as a branch of the admiralty jurisdiction ?

<p>APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Massachusetts.</p>

The Thomas Jefferson, 23 U.S. 428 (1825), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that admiralty jurisdiction did not extend to navigable rivers within the United States. The court strictly construed language in the Judiciary Act of 1789 to conclude that Congress did not intend to change the extent of admiralty jurisdiction. The court upheld this doctrine in The Orleans (1837) but overruled it in The Genesee Chief (1851), saying admiralty jurisdiction had always extended to navigable rivers.

This cause was formerly before the Court, and the decision then pronounced will be found reported, ante, vol. 7. p. 490.

<p>ERROR to the Circuit Court of Tennessee.</p>

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

<p>ERROR to the Circuit Court of West Tennessee.</p>

. - This was a libel filed in the District Court by the appellants, resident merchants of Baltimore, against the respondent, Almeida, charging him with having forcibly and piratically taken from on board' a certain vessel, off the capes of the Chesapeake, and within the territorial limits of the United States,.the sum of 5,000 dollars, in specie, belonging to the appellants, and converted "the sanie to his own úse, without bringing it into any port or place for adjudication.

<p>Where the Court of Admiralty has parted with the possession of the property, upon bail or stipulation, arid it is necessary, for the purposes of justice,- to retake.the property into the custody of the Court, the proper process against any person not a party to the stipulation, but who is alleged to have the actual or constructive possession, is a monition, and not an execution,in the first instance.</p>

This was the. case of an armed vessel, called the; Pálrnyra, takén under Spanish colours by the United States’ schooner Grampus, (commanded, by Lieutenant Gregory, and cruising, with instructions from the President, against pirates,) and brought into the port of Charleston, S. C. for adjudication.