Volume 29 — United States Reports

Held: that claims of compensation for improvements made under the authority of these acts of the legislature of New York, are inconsistent with the provisions of the treaty of peace with Great Britain, of 1783, and should be rejected. [101] That in all casesrn party is bound by natural justice to pay for improvements on land, made against his will, or without his consent, is a proposition which the court are not prepared…

AT January term 1829, on motion of Mr Key, and on affidavit filed, the court granted a rule on the honourable Alfred Conklin, district judge of the northern district of New Fork, to show cause why he -did not sign a certain bill of exceptions tendered to him on the pait of the plaiutiff, in the case of James Jackson ex dem. of Martha Bradstreet vs. Daniel Thomas; which cause had been tried before.him, and a verdict given for the defendant.

Mr Hoffman moved the court for the admission of Mr J. L. Tillinghast, as a counsellor of this court. He stated, that he was a counsellor of the court of chancery of the state of - New York and of the supreme court of that state, and was at this time in the full exercise and enjoyment of the rights and'priviieges,of a counsfellor of those courts.

An action of assumpsit was brought in the circuit court of South Carolina by Timothy Edwards, a citizen of the state of Georgia, against Boyce and Henry, merchants of Charleston, upon two bills of exchange drawn by Adam Hutchinson at Augusta, (Georgia, on the plaintiffs in error, dated the 27th of February 1827, payable sixty days after sight, amounting together to four'thousand four hundred and thirty-óne dollars.

In the circuit court, the United States filed a bill the object of which was to make certain real property, assigned on the *22d of October 1823 by John Morrison to Robert G. Ward, subject to a judgment obtained in their favour in the western district of Virginia, in October. 1819. The assignment made by Morrison to Ward was general, of all his property, in trust for the payment of his-debts to sundry persons.

Held: and she was recommended to be sold for the benefit of all concerned. The assured abandoned, and there was no pretence but that the injury which the vessel bad sustained justified the abandonment. The question in the case was, whether, by the acts of the assured, the abandonment had not been revoked.

<p>The plaintiff in replevin, James D’Wolf, claimed the merchandize under an assignment executed by George D’Wolf and John Smith to him, in consideration of a large sum of money due by them to James D’Wolf, and in consideration of advances to be made tb them by him. The assignment transferred four vessels and their cargoes, three of which vessels were then at sea, and one in New York ready to sail, the property of the assignors. The assignment was to be void on the payment to James D’Wolf of the money due to him ; and if it should not be paid, the assignee to enforce the pledge by process and arrest in all countries or places whatsoever, and to sell the same for the payment of tho amount.dhe by them, the assignors, to George D’Wolf. The merchandize for which this action of replevin was instituted, was part of the return cargo of one of the vessels. The defendant, Harris, pleaded that the merchandize was not the property of the plaintiff, but of George D’Wolf and John Smith; and justified the taking of the goods of the plaintiff, as marshal of the district of Massachusetts, by virtue of a writ of attachment sued out in the district court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts, in which suit judgment was obtained against George D’Wolf. On the trial, the plaintiff in the replevin proved the assignment, that large sums of money were due to him-by George D’Wolf and John Smith, that the goods were part of the property assigned, that he had used all proper means to take possession of the goods, but was prevented by the attachment issued by the United States. The defendant proved that the goods were imported into the United States by D’Wolf and Smith, and that at the time of the importation, they were indebted to the United States for duties which were due and unpaid, to an amount exceeding the value of the merchandize attached; and that the Octavia, one of the vessels assigned, with a cargo on board ready for sea, was at New York at 'the time of the assignment; which ship was riot delivered to James,iD’Wolf, the assignee, nor were the bills of lading assigned, the cargoes on board the • vessels being consigned to the masters for sales and returns.</p> <p>By the. Court: In the case of Conard vs. The Atlantic Insurance Company, 1 Peters, 306, it was decided thgjthe non delivery of a vessel assigned to secure or pay a bona fide debt, did not make the assignment absolutely void. This court is well satisfied with that opinion.</p> <p>The deed of assignment conveyed to the assignee a right to the proceeds of the outward bound cargoes on board the vessels assigned to James D’Wolf.</p> <p>The failure of George D’Wolf to deliver to the assignee the copies of the bills of lading which were in his possession, did not leave the property subject to the attachment of creditors, who had no notice of the deed. It was held in the case of Conard vs. The Atlantic Insurance Company, that such a transfer gives the assignee a right to take and hold those proceeds against any person but the consignee of the cargo, or purchaser from the consignee without notice.</p> <p>That the consignees of the merchandize were indebted to the United Slates on duty bonds remaining due and unpaid at the time of the importation, did not, under the sixty-second section of the act of March 2,1799, make the merchandize, as to the United States, the property of the consignees, notwithstanding the assignment; and make the attachment of the United'States for the debt due to them sufficient to bar the action of replevin brought by the assignee.</p>

Held: that the sale of the land under which the defendant claimed was void.

Held: that the statute began to run from the time of committing tlie error by the misnomer in the actiop against the, indorser. The ground of action hete is a contract to act diligently and skilfully; and both the contract and the breach of it admit of a definite assignment of date. When might this action have been brought, is the question; for from that time the statute must run.

THIS was an appeal .from the circuit court of the county of Alexandria, in the district of Columbia. The appellant was complainant in that court.

Virginia. The appellees, who are citizens of Maryland, filed their bill in the court of the United States, for the western district' pf Virginia, in which the material allegations set forth áre, that on the 22d of June 1809, Grizzle Taggart, mother of John Taggart, conveyed to William Copeland Goldsmith and James Caldwell, all her estate , for the .uses and purposes mentioned in the deed exhibited with the bill.

THIS was an action of replevin°brought by the plaintiff to replevy certain goods and chattels which the defendant, as bailiff of William S. Moore, had taken upon a distress for rent claimed by the said Moore to be due upon certain houses and lots in Alexandria, owned and held by the plaintiff. The sum for which distress was made is five hundred dollars. The declaration is in the usual form; and the damages claimed one thousand dollars..

Held: that no rights or claims exist in the former proprietors or their heirs, and that the proceedings of the corporation of Washington, under and in conformity with the provisions of the act; are valid aW effectual for the purposes of the act. APPEAL from the circuit court of the district of Columbia, for the county of Washington. *233 The original bill, in this case was filed the 16th of April 1823.

Held: that as the petition for rehearing forms no part of the record, it cannot be noticed. The jurisdiction of this court depends on the matter disclosed in the bill of exceptions. ERROR from the supreme court of the state of Missouri.

The defendant in error brought an action of trespass, in the court below, against the plaintiff in error, for a quantity of merchandize, consisting of teas, cassia, nankeens, &c. all of the value of one hundred and ninety-three thousand seven hundred and twenty-five dollars. Also for four ships, viz. the Addison, the Woodrop Sims, the Thomas Scattergood, and the Benjamin Rush, all of the value of one hundred thousand dollars.

In the circuit court for the district of Ohio, James Hamilton, James Strickerand Frances his wife, late Frances Hamilton, heirs at law of Alexander Hamilton and others, grantees of Alexander Hamilton, filed a bill for a specific' performance of a contract entered into between Elisha King, the father of John W. King, one of the appellants, and Alexander Hamilton, on the 8th of February .1815, for the sale of certain lands in the state of Ohio within the Virginia military…

James Galt, as heir to his brother Patrick Galt, the ancestor of the complainants, oii the 6th day of August 1787,' made an entry for military lands in the Virginia reservation, in the following words : “No. 610, James Galt (heir) enters one thousand acres on part of a military warrant, No. 194, on the Miami river, beginning at the upper corner of Francis Wheeling’s entry, No. 438, running up the river five hundred poles when, reduced'to a straight line; thence at. right…

<p>FROM the circuit court of the district of Columbia, for the county of Washington.</p> <p>This.was. an ejectment, brought by the defendant in error, in the circuit court, for the recovery of an undivided moiety of a, lot of ground in the city of Washington, No. 4, in square No. 491.</p> <p>The lessor of the plaintiff in the. ejectment claimed to be entitled, to the lot .of ground as tenant in common with the heirs at law of Henry Toland, deceased; and on the 10th of March 1823, the half of the lot so held by the lessor of the plaintiff, was set up and exposed to-publie sale, as assessed to James N. Taylor, for taxes due to the corporation of Washington, for the years 1820 and 1821, amounting,-in the whole, including- the expenses of the sale, to the :sum of forty-seven dollárs and ninety-one cents; and Henry T. Weightrnan became the purchaser of the same. MaryRonkéndorff^ the plaintiff in error, holds, as lessee, tinder the purchase at the tax sale.</p> <p>in the circuit court the jury returned á verdict for. the plaintiff in the ejectment; upon which judgment for his unexpired term in an undivided, ¡moiety of the lot as tenant in common was rendered'in his favour, under the instructions qf the court; to. which several exceptions were taken.</p> <p>The plaintiff in the circuit court made out his title under the commissioners of the city'of Washington, by regular conveyances to himself and Henry Toland deceased; and it was agreed that the plaintiff’s lessee and Toland’s heirs were under the same, seised in fee as tenants in common of the premises, before the sale óf the half lot for taxes;</p> <p>The defendant proved the assessment of the taxes on the lot, by the production of the-regular evidence, and that the taxes were assessed and the assessments were entered in the tax books, according to the forms usually pursued and authorised under the charter and ordinances of the corporation of Washington.</p> <p>In the tax book of 1820, the assessment of lot No. 4, in square No. 491, appears arranged in columns in the established and accustomed forms ; in which are placed the name and residence of the owner of the property ; the number of the square; the number of the lot; its contents in square feet; the rate of assessment; the valuation ; the valuation of the improvements; and the amount of the tax.. The lot in controversy was entered in the tax book of 1820 thus :</p> <p> </p> <p>In the tax book for 1821, the assessments of the lot were entered as follows:</p> <p> </p> <p>It was also proved, on the part of the defendant in the ejectment, that the persons appointed to take the value of the property liable to assessments. for taxes in the city of Washington, usually perform the duty in October in each year, and make out annual lists. of the same and of-it» assessed value ; which, after being laid before the board of ap> peal empowered to correct the valuations, are .returned to tlie-register, of the.'cor-poration,.'wilh the corrections, i'f ány, in Whose custody and-office the-original books containing such lists and valuations are preserved;,-and the ■ register, by. the- authority of.the corporation, then proceeds to digest the tax books, year by year, in. the form described, and tr-ansferSiinto auch tax books, from the original assessment books set returned by theassessor.s, through-th.e board of appeal, the lists Of theseveral species, descriptions and parcels of property on which such taxes are imposed, and .the. assessed valuation ot me. same, as corrected" by the board of appeal; extending in the-proper column-prepared for the. purpose, the amount of the taxes imposed Upon thé'same respectively: which tax books, given in évidenc e by the defendant, were so made up and arranged by the register, in. the- years 1820 and 1821 respectively the general taxes- theyain respectively assessed becoming due and payable, according to the laws of the corporation, on the first-day of January of ,each year then next ensuing; that is to say, the general tax (exclusive Of the special, tax for paving) for the year 1820, cm. the 1st.of January 1821; and that for the'year 1821, on the 1st of January 1822.</p> <p>The court, on the motion of the plaintiff, instructed the jury'that the tax. books, so given in- evidence* by the defendant, were not competent evidence to prove the assessments ’of the.lot,for the years 1820 and 1821, unless the defendant first proved theregular appointment and authority of the assessors -whose books and- returns were used in making up and arranging the tax books as aforesaid; and algo produced the original books so returned by' the assessors, through the board of appeal, in each year respectively; to which opinion: and instruction of the court- the defendant in the circuit, court, excepted.</p> <p>It was. further preyed on the part of the defendant, that the. Collector of. the taxesimposed by the corporation, in third and fourth wards, "who was authorised to advertise and sell all property in those wards liable to be sold by taxes, oh Mon-. day the 6th of December, in the year 1822, the taxes on the lot in controversy being unpaid, caused to be inserted in the National-Intelligencer, the following advertisement:</p> <p>“Will be sold, at public sale, on Monday the 10th of March next, at 10 o’clock, A.M. at the. City Hall, the following described property, to satisfy the corporation of Washington city for taxes due thereon up to the year 1821 inclusive, with costs and .charges; unless previously paid to the subscriber, to wit: (and amongst others are the following.)</p> <p> </p> <p>This advertisement was repeated, and republished, by the direction of the collector; on the several days following:</p> <p>Friday, Decémber 6th, 1822. — -Saturday, December 14th, 1822, —Monday, December 16th, 1822. — Tuesday, December 17th, 1822. — Wednesday, December 25th, 1822. — Saturday, January 4th, 1823. — Monday, January 6th, 1823.— Saturday, January 18th, 1823. — Tuesday, January 21st, 1823. —Saturday, February 1st, 1823. — Tuesday, February 4th, 1823. — Thursday, February 6th, Í823. — Saturday, February 8th, 1823. — Tuesday, February 11th, 1823. — Wednesday, February 12th, 1823. — Thursday, February 13th, 1823, — Friday, February 14th, 1823. — Saturday, February 15th, 1823. — ¡Monday, February 17th, 1823. — Tuesday, February 18th, 1823. — Wednesday, February 19th, 1823.; — Saturday, March 1st, 1823. — Monday, March 3d, 1823. — Tuesday, March 4th, 1823. — Wednesday, March 5th, 1823.— Monday, March 10th, 1823.</p> <p>The tenth section of the act of congress of the 15th May 1820j “ to incorporate the inhabitants of the city of Washington, and to repeal all other acts heretofore passed,” requires that real estate upon which two years’ taxes are unpaid and in arrear, shall be advertised “ once a week” for three months.</p> <p>In pursuance of his authority and duty, and according to .the tenor of the advertisement, the collector, on the 10th of March 1823, set up at public sale one half of the lot No. 4, in square No. 491; and the same having been purchased by Henry T. 'Weightman, he paid the amount of the purchase money on the 11th of March 1823, to the collector, who thereupon executed and delivered to him a certificate under his hand, and executed in the presence of a witness; stating, that “ at a sale made by me, as collector o,f taxes for the third and-fourth wards of the city of Washington, on the 10th of March 1823, after due notice given as required by the acts of the corporation of said city, I set up and exposed to public; sale, half of lot No. 4, in square No. 491, assessed to James N. Taylor, for faxes due the said corporation on the same, for the years 1820 and 1821, arhounting in the whole, including the expenses .of sale, to the. sum of forty-seven dollars and ninety-one cents; when a certain Henry- T. Weightman, being the highest bidder, became the purchaser thereof, at and for the sum of forty-seven dollars and ñinety-óne cents: the receipt of' forty-seven dollars and ninety-one cents is hereby acknowledged, subject however to redemption as provided for by law.</p> <p>The collector made a return of the sale in the following form:</p> <p> </p> <p>Mr Weightman entered upon the half lot so sold to him, and was possessed thereof more-than two years after the day of sale; and afterwards, on the 5th. of October 1826, received. in ’due form a conveyance in fee simple of the' said half lot, whieh deed was duly recorded: the plaintiff’s lessor, James N. Taylor, or any person for him or in his behalf,-or any person whatever, not having at any time paid or in any manner tendered to Mr Weightman, or deposited in the hands, of the mayor or other officer of the corporation, the money paid to the collector, or any part thereof.</p> <p>- The court, on the motion of the plaintiff, Instructed the jury, that the advertisement of the propetty was defective and illegal in the several instances.and particulars following, to wit;</p> <p>1. That, being published and republished as aforesaid, on the several days aforesaid, from the 6th of December 1822 to the lTth of March 1823,both inclusive, was notan advertisement “ once a week” for three months, within the. meaning of the tenth section of the act of congress, passed on the 15th of May 1^20, “to incorporate the inhabitants of the city of Washington, and to repeal all acts heretofore passed for that purpose.”</p> <p>2. That the said corporation, or its collector of taxes acting under its authority, was not competent to advertise and sell any part of the said lot No. 4, in square No. 491, less than the entire lot, for the taxes so assessed on the same and due to the said corporation.</p> <p>3. That the entire lot should have been assessed to the two tenants in common, Taylor and Toland; and accordingly advertised android, as assessed to them.</p> <p>4. That the said advertisement did not sufficiently designate what half of the said lot was charged with the said taxes, and was to be sold for the same; and did not purport to be. an .advertisement of an undivided moiety of the same for sale.-</p> <p>5. That the said corporation or its said collector had no power or authority to advertise the said lot for sale, till the last of the two years’ taxes, for which the same was advertised for sale, had remained unpaid and in arrears for two years.</p> <p>6. That the said advertisement does not purport to advertise the said lot for two years’ taxes unpaid and in arrears.</p> <p>7. That the said property so attempted to be sold, was not described with sufficient certainty, either in the advertisement or at the sale.</p> <p>For which several defects, in the process of the. assessment, advertisement and sale of the said lot, the said sale is illegal and void.</p> <p>The defendant excepted to all these instructions and opinions of the court, and prosecuted this writ of error.</p>

Held: that the neglect of the holder of the note to proceed against the jailor and bis securities, prevents his making of the indorser liable for the amount uf the note. [388] ' *367 The court find no express decision of the courts of Kentucky'enjoining a plaintiff who has sued the drawer of a promissory note, and intends to charge the indorser, to proceed against a jailor and his sureties, when the defendant has ■ been…

THIS, case came before the court on a certificate of a division of opinion by the judges of the circuit court for the district' of Rhode Island.

Held: by aliens “ under deed or will, hereafter to be made.’,’: Thus the provisions are limited to lands acquired or held by one of this description of titles. The bid of Thomas Spratt acquired for him an equitable interest in the property; and he became' a .'trustee, not for his foreign heirs, but. for his wife, who by his subsequent natur' ralization, became a citizen.

Held: that the certificates issued under- the authority of the law of Missouri, were “bills of credit;” and that their emission was prohibited by the constitution of the .United States, which declares that no state shall “ emit bills of credit:” A promissory note given for certificates issued at the loan office of Chariton in Missouri, payable to the state of Missouri, under- the act of the' legislature “ establishing…

Held: that the conveyance was not authorised by the . laws of Kentucky, in force atthe time of the decree.

THIS cabse was cortified to this court from the circuit court of the United .States for the district of Vermont: the judgés of that court being opposed in opinion on. certain questions ofr law. which arose at. the trial.

THESE cases came before the court, on appeals from-the district court of the United States for the district of Missouri. In the district .court of Missouri, the appellants, under the act of congress of the 26th of May 1824, instituted proceedings to try the validity of their ¡claims to certain lands in Missouri; the titles to which they claimed to derive under the former Spanish govo - iment. The district court gave a decree against the claimants.

Held: that the act of the legislature of Rhode Island, imposing a tax, which, under the law, was assessed on the Providence Bank, does not impair the obligation of the contract created by the charter granted to the bank.