Volume 24 — United States Reports

The original libel filed in the District Court against the Portuguese ship Marianna Flora, and cargo, was for an alleged piratical aggression attempted or committed by the ship on the United States armed schooner Alligator, Lieutenant Stockton commander, against the act of Congress of the 3d of March, 1819, c. 75. entitled, “ An act to protect the commerce of the United Sthtes, and punish the crime of piracy.”a Upon the hearing of the cause in the District Court, the Judge…

This was an action of assumpsit brought in the Court below by the defendants in error, against the plaintiff in error, Etting, as the endorser of the promissory note of James W. M‘Cullough, under the following circumstances, In the year 1819, the president of the Branch Bank, established at Baltimore, his pártner in trade, M‘Cullougli, the cashier of the branch, and Williams, one of the directors of the parent bank, had contracted a debt to the bank to the amount of…

Held: that the trust failing as'to them, resulted for the benefit of the assignor, and the deed was, therefore, void, by the statute of frauds, as to the other creditors; and being void in part, was void in the whole. (Hyslop v. Clark, 14 Johns.

Held: also, that where a party charges himself with a certain sum. and at the same tune discharges himself, it shall be evidence against him, but not for him. b The other exceptions to the Master’s report were also minutely discussed ; but it is not thought necessary to state them, as they are enumerated, and fully examined, in the judgment of this Court. 12. The final decree is erroneous in several particulars.

Held: that the bailiffs were the proper persons, and the judgment was affirmed* See Mod. 1. Another instance of a like proceeding in the Court Baron of the Manor of Wolverhampton, is in Robbins' Ent. 323. There, false judgment was brought on this errol, that the lands were not mentioned to be within the manor; but the judgment was affirmed.

Held: that if a bill of exchange be accepted payable at a particular place, the declaration in an action on such bill against the acceptor, must aver presentment at that place, and the averment must be proved.

THIS cause was argued by the Attorney General and Mr. Swann, for the plaintiffs,a and by Mr. Jones and Mr. Key, for the defendant.

<p>Under the embargo act of the 25th of April, 1808, c. 170. [lxvi.] 11. the collector is protected in the honest exercise of his discretion in detaining the vessel, and securing both vessel and cargo, until an actual termination of the voyage.</p> <p>Whether the voyage has terminated,is a question of fact, and if the voyage be colourably, but not really terminated, the collector may detain the vessel, if he hats honest suspicions.</p>

This was an action of ejectment brought by the plaintiff in error, • to recover the possession of the premises in the cause, described as in lot No. 107 in the town of Cincinnati. It appeared in evidence at the trial, that on the 28th of March, 1799, Thomas Doyle, sen. under whom both parties derived title, was seized and possessed of the lot in question.

<p>The following entry is invalid, for want of that certainty and precision which the local laws and decisions require: “ January 27 1788. J. C. L. enters 20,000 acres of land on twenty treasury warrants, No. 8,859, fee. beginning at the mouth of a creek falling into the main fork of Licking, on the north side, beloiv some cedar cliffs, and about 85 miles above the Upper Blue Licks, and running from said beginning up the north side of Licking, and bounding with the same as far as will amount to ten miles when reduced to'-a straight line, thence extending from each end of.said reduced line, a northerly course at right angles to the same for quantity.”</p>

<p>An entry, calling for the land to lie on the east side of Slate creek, a soul Invest branch of the main fork of .Licking, “ beginning where a buffalo road crosseth said creek at the mouth of a branch emptying into said creek at the northeast side, it being the place of beginning for S. M.’s entry of 20,,000 acres,” is defective in certainty and precision ; and its defects are not aided by the reference to S. M.’s entry for “ 20,000 acres, lying on the west side of Slate creek, southwest branch of the main fork of Licking creek, beginning where the buffalo road crosses Slate creek, at the mouth of a branch, emptying in on the east side thereof; there are several cabins,” &c. “ to include a large quantity of fallen timber,” &c.</p>

THIS was an action of general indebitatus assumpsit, brought in the Circuit Court of Ohio, for work and labour, care and diligence, by the plaintiff done and bestowed, asan agent and'attorney, in exploring, showing, surveying, and selling, the lands of the defendant’s testator; also, in the searching of records, investigating titles, and in the payment of the taxes of the testator. The declaration contains the other general money counts.

Held: that A. might maintain an action on the promise of B. to refund the money. But if the importation is tHe result of a scheme between the plaintiff and defendant, or if the plaintiff has any interest in the goods, or if they are consigned to him with his privity, in order that he may protect them for the owner, a promise to repay any advances made under such understanding or agreement is utterly void. ERROR to the .

Held: that it was not, without notice of the ejectment. But he thought that his subsequent promise amounted to an admission that the plaintiff was entitled to the possession of the premises, and that he himself was a trespasser. The language of the learned Judge seems, indeed, to import, that if the landlord had had notice of the ejectment, he would have been concluded by the recovery in the ejectment.

<p>Although, in general, all encumbrancers must be made parties to a bill of foreclosure, yet where a decree of foreclosure and sale was . made and executed, at the suit of a subsequent mortgagee, and with the consent of the mortgagor, it not appearing to the Court that there was any prior’encumbrance, the proceedings will not be set aside upon the application of the mortgagor, in order to let in the prior mortgagee, who ought regularly to have been made a party, unless it be necessary to prevent irremediable mischief.</p> <p>Q utzre, Whether such a practice be admissible in any case?</p> <p>But in such a case, the prior encumbrancers are not bound by the decree in a suit to which they are not made parties ; and the purchasers under the sale take subject to the prior liens.</p>

Held: that those declarations did not amount to an unqualified and unconditional acknowledgment of the debt, but that the plaintiff ought to have proved a performance, or a readiness to perform the condition on which, the new promise was made. Feb. 7th. This cause was argued by Mr. Swann for the plaintiff, a and bv Mr. Jones and Mr. Key for the defendant. b Feb. 11th. a He cited Swan v. Sowell, 2 Barnw. and Ald. Rep. 759.

Held: that no party could insist upon the other party’s joining in demurrer, without distinctly admitting, upon the record, every fact, and every conclusion, which the evidence given for his adversary conduced to prove.

<p>nder the statute of limitations of Tennessee of 1797, c. 43. s. 4. peaceable and uninterrupted possession, claiming to hold the land adverse to the claims of all other persons, for seven years, under a grant, or deed of conveyance founded upon a grant,.gives a'complete title to tl¡e person who has the possession.</p>

THIS was an action of ejectment brought in the Circuit Court of Kentucky, in which the lessors of-the plaintiff gave in evidence a patent from the Commonwealth of Virginia, for the lands in controversy, lying in Kentucky, to Robertus S. Rrantz, then an alien, bearing date the 11th of October, 1784, founded on a land-office treasury warrant.

<p>The terms “beyond seas,” in the saving .clause of a statute of limitations, are to be construed as equivalent to without the limits of the State where the statute is exacted.</p> <p>Quxre, How far'this construction has been adopted by the Courts of Tennessee ?</p> <p>Five years bona fide possession of a slave constitutes a title, by the laws of Virginia, upon which the possessor may recover in detinue; and this title may be set up by the vendee of such possessor in the Courts of Tennessee, as a defence to a suit brought by a third party in those Courts.</p>

Held: that the children of C. and J. T. Griffin took per stirpes, and natter capita, and that the property devised to them was to be .divided into two equal parts, one moiety to be assigned to each family. THIS cause was submitted without argument. March 10th.

<p>Iii general, the validity of a patent for lands can only be impeached for causes anterior to its being issued, in a-Court of equity. But where the grant is absolutely void, as where the State has no title, or the officer has no authority to issue the grant, the validity of the grant may be contested at law. .</p> <p>The .laws of Georgia, in the year 1787, did not prohibit the issuing of a patent to any one person for more than 1,000 acres of land. The proviso in the act of Assembly of the 17th of February, 1783, limiting the quantity to that number, is exclusively confined to head-rights.</p>

Held: that it was necessary to prove a valid policy. If, then, the .validity of the policy is essential to the offence, it becomes nécessary in this case- to show a legally subsisting corporation, capable of executing a valid policy of insurance, and a policy legally executed.

<p>Where there is a joint judgment against several defendants, and one only sues out the writ of 'error without joining the others, it is irregular; but if the others refuse to join in it, qu/zre, whether the plaintiff uiay not have summons and severance?</p>

<p>Where, in a special verdict, the essential tacts are not distinctly fopnd by the jury, although there is sufficient evidence to establish them, this Court will not render a judgment upon such an imperfect special verdict, but will remand the cause to the Court below, with directions to award a venire facias de novo.</p>

THE defendants, Kelly and others, were indicted in the Circuit Court' for the District of Pennsylvania, for that the defendants, on the 24th of December, 1824, being seamen on board a merchant vessel of the United States, called the Lancaster, on the high seas, feloniously endeavoured to mak,e a revolt in. the said vessel, contrary to the act of Congress of the 30th of April, 1790, c. 36. [ix.] s, 12.

<p>The words “ true value,” in the 11th section of the duty act of the 20th of April, 1818, c. 361. mean the actual cost of the goods to the importer at the place from which they were imported, and not the current rr-^ket value of the goods at such place.</p> <p>If the Collector, in fact, suspects that the goods are invoiced belolv the current market value thereof, at the place iron) which they were imported, but does not suspect that they were invoiced below the true and actual cost thereof to the importer, the Collector has no right to direct an appraisement.</p> <p>But, whenever, in the opinion of the Collector, there is just ground to suspect that the invoice does not truly state the actual cost of the goods, he may direct the appraisement, and is not bound to disclose the grounds upon which he forms that opinion, whether it is formed from his knowledge or information of the current market price of the goods, or other circumstances affording grounds to suspect the invoice to be fraudulent.</p>

The libel in this case was in personam against the owners of the private armed vessel La For-tuna, stated to be owned by American citizens, for the recovery of damages for the illegal seizure, &c. of the Portuguese ship Monte Alegre and cargo, which, by a previous decree of the Court, had been restored to the libellants, no damages having been claimed in the libel in rem.a A decree proforma was taken for the libellants in the Circuit Court, and Commissioners were ordered to…

<p>No precise form of notice to the endorser of a promissory note is necessar. ;and n is not necessary to state, in the notice, who is the holder ; nor will a mistake as to the date of the note vitiate the notices ■ if it conveys to the party a sufficient knowledge of the particular note which has been dishonoured.</p> <p>It is not-necessary that the notice should contain, a formal allegation that it was demanded at the place where payable. It is sufficient that it states,the fact of non-payment of the note, and that the • holder looks to the endorser for indemnity.</p> <p>By the general law, demand of payment of a bill or note must be made on the third day of grace; but where a note is made for the purpose of being negotiated at a bank, whose custom is to demand payment, and give notice on the fourth day, that custom forms a part of the law of the contract; and it is not necessary that a personal knowledge of the usage should be brought home to the endorser for that purpose.</p> <p>The general rule of law, requiring proof of the title of the holders of-a note, may be modified by a rule of Court, dispensing with proof of the execution of the note! unless the party shall annex to his plea an affidavit thatthe note Was not executed fcy jjiin.</p>

<p>Q«ere. Whether the compact of 1789, between Virginia and Kentucky, restrained the legislature of Kentucky from' prolonging the time for surveying one entry to the prejudice of another?</p> <p>By. the construction of the act of Kentucky of 1797) granting further time for making surveys, with a proviso, allowing to infants, &IC. three years after their several disabilities are removed to complete surveys on their entries; if any one or more of the joint owners be under the disability .of infancy, fcc. itbrings the entry with in the saving of the proviso) as to all of the other owners</p>

Held: that the award was void, as not- being final and conclusive.

Held: as early as the .year 1793, in the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, by Wilson and Peters, J. J. .(Iredell, J. dissenting,) that the jurisdiction in a criminal prosecution against a foreign consul, who was indicted for a misdemeanor at common law, was constitutionally vested in that Court,. under the llth-section of .the Judiciary Act of 1789, c. 20. (The United States v Ravara, 2 Dall.