Volume 3 — District of Columbia Reports

Action upon the case for seducing the plaintiff’s daughter, whereby he lost her service. Damages laid at $2,000. offered to prove a promise of marriage as the means of seduction. objected, and cited 2 Phillips on Ev. 159; Tullidge v. Wade, 3 Wilson, 18; Dodd v. Norris, 3 Camp. 519, and Foster v. Schofield, 1 John. Rep. 297.

<p>Attachment under the Maryland Act of 1795, c. 56.</p>

<p>When, some of the defendants have been taken, and others not arrested, the plaintiff may amend his declaration at the trial term, in that respect, as a matter of right, and such amendments will not authorize the defendants to plead the statute of limitations.</p> <p>If the defendant reads the credit side of the account, filed by the plaintiff as part of his declaration, he thereby makes the whole account evidence for the plaintiff.</p>

<p>In order to justify the marshal for arresting a man for a militia fine, it is not necessary that the list of fines should have been delivered to him by- the clerk of the court-martial within fifteen days after the session of the appellate court, as required by the fourth section of the militia act for the District of Columbia.</p>

Assumpsit, on a note made by one Mozart, payable to the plaintiff, or order, and indorsed in blank by the defendant. The first count charged the defendant as maker of a note, of similar import as that signed by Mozart. The second count was upon an express guaranty of payment of the note of Mozart. The third count also was upon the guaranty.

Replevin. Motion for a return of the property to the defendant, who was a constable, and had taken the goods as the property of one Joseph W. Greenwell, under a fieri facias, upon a judgment against him.

Action upon the case for a libel; pléa in justification, and general demurrer, and joinder. The declaration contains two counts.

Assumpsit against the defendant as indorser of Daniel Reint-zel’s note, for $3,700. The notice for the defendant was left at the shop of the defendant’s son, kept in the dwelling-house of the defendant, but having a separate entrance, and unconnected with the part occupied by the defendant. The defendant had no concern with the shop, and the son had a separate dwelling-house.

Covenant upon an agreement, dated January 13,1824, under seal, by which the defendant contracted with the plaintiff to deliver 5000 perches of building stone at Fortress Munroe at a place called “ The Rip-Raps ” by the 1st of November, 1824, at $2 a perch, to be paid as fast as money should be received by the plaintiff from the Government therefor, and also 1000 perches of Rip-Rap stone, and 2000 perches of Rip-Rap stone, if the plaintiff should require it and give notice to…

Action for money had and received by the defendants for the use of the plaintiffs, who were joint partners under the name of Clement T. Coote & Co. The bank had paid out the funds of the firm upon the individual check of C. T. Coote, who had an account open in the bank in his own name, but had no funds.

<p>If a witness for the plaintiff testifies that on a certain day he paid to the defendant a certain sum of money, and toot his receipt, the plaintiff is not hound to produce the receipt on the trial.</p> <p>If a dedimus issue to take depositions in a cause in which Richard M. Méade is plaintiff, whereas the name of the plaintiff was Richard W. Meade, and the commissioners certify that they took the depositions to be read in a cause in which Richard W. Meade was plaintiff, the depositions are admissible, notwithstanding the clerical error in writing an M. for a W. in the commission.</p> <p>In taking a deposition under a commission it is not necessary that it should he written by the commissioners, or by their clerk, or by the witness.</p>

Bill in equity to stay a judgment at law rendered upon an award of arbitrators. An injunction had been granted by one of the judges in vacation; and Mr. Marbury, having given notice to the complainant, now moved to dissolve the injunction, for want of equity in the bill.

Debt on replevin bond. The plaintiff in replevin was non-prossed, and the defendant had judgment for a return. The writ of retorno habendo was returned “ elongataP Hazel, offered to give evidence, in mitigation of damages, that the property of the goods reple-vied was in him; and cited McDaniel v. Fish, in this Court, at December Term, 1818, (2 Cranch, C. C. 160,) and Wilson v. Slye.

Petition por breedom. Upon a former petition against Mil-burne, judgment was rendered in favor of the petitioner, upon the default of Milburne to rejoin. Milburne had, in that casé, disclaimed to hold the petitioner as a slave; to which the petitioner replied certain facts, showing that Milburne had purchased the petitioner, and did claim and hold him.

INDICTMENT under the 16th section of the Act of Congress of the 3d of March, 1825, c. 65, (pamphlet, p. 65,) [4 Stat. at Large, 118,] “ more effectually to provide for the punishment of certain crimes, against the United States, and for other purposes,” for embezzling a check for $135.

Debt on the administration-bond; breach, in not paying Ann Moxley’s distributive share of the estate of John Lyon, deceased. The defendants claimed to retain for her board and education. contended that if the defendants had been guardians they would not have been allowed more than the income of the estate unless previously authorized so to do by the Orphans’ Court. As.administrators, they had no right to make advances on account of the distributive share.

Assumpsit, for use and occupation. Plea; eviction of part, in bar of the whole action. contended that if Mrs. Blake resumed the occupation, it was a waiv.er of the eviction, and restored the plaintiff to her right of action. 1 Esp. N. P. p. 2, 72; 4 Stark, on Ev. 1520, 1521; Smith v. Raleigh, 3 Camp. 513; Stokes v. Cooper, 3 Camp. 514; Fitchburg Company v. Melvin et al., 15 Mass. R.. 270.

The defendant Packard was brought in upon an attachment, for not answering the bill. This attachment was issued by order of the Court at this term, on the 10th of January, 1827, and made returnable by the clerk before himself at the Rules on the first Monday in April next. moved to quash the attachment; or to discharge the defendant without answer, upon merely entering his appearance.

This was a bill in equity to charge the land, or rather the proceeds of the sale of the land, in the hands of a trustee who had sold it under a decree of this Court on a bill filed by creditors of the late George King, to charge the real estate, for the deficiency of personal assets for the payment of his debts.

This was a bill in equity for the sale of real estate mortgaged in August 1814, by Hollingshead to Kurtz, as trustee for the Bank of Columbia, by two deeds which were not recorded, and are now lost. Mr. Melvin, one of the defendants, who indorsed other notes of Hollingshead, objects to the complainant’s claim of priority, or lien upon the land.

This was an action upon the case against “ the Common Council of Alexandria,” for negligence in licensing an auctioneer without taking bond and security according to the Virginia Act of 1796, “ concerning corporations,” and the by-law of “ the Mayor and Commonalty” of the 5th of February, 1800.

This was an amicable suit brought by. certain residuary legatees under the will of General George Washington of Mount Vernon, to enable the executors to settle the estate. There was also a cross-bill-filed by the executors against some of those-residuary legatees who had purchased at the sales of the property, or had otherwise received more than the value of their respective legacies.

TRESPASS, for levying a fieri facias upon the plaintiff’s property, for the debt of Silas and David Reed. The defence was, that the deed from Silas and David Reed to the plaintiffs was fraudulent and void as to the creditors of the said S. and D. Reed.

Indictment for the murder of Tobias Martin, in the county of Washington ; the cause having been removed to this county at the request of the prisoner. was asked by Mr. Hewitt, the prisoner’s counsel, whether he had formed an opinion respecting the guilt of the prisoner.

This was an amicable bill filed to settle the construction of the will of Ezra Kinsey. The following is the clause in question: — “ I give and bequeathe the whole rest and residue of my estate, either real or personal, and of share of stock in trade, and every thing I am possessed of, to Zenas Kinsey or his heirs; N. B. Ezra Kinsey is to have a double portion of my estate more than Zenas Kinsey’s other children. He is to have my silver watch.

This was an appeal from the Orphans’ Court for the county of Alexandria.

<p>Upon a parol lease for one year at $600 per annum and an occupation for two or more years, the plaintiff may recover for the whole time of occupation at that rate, upon a count upon indebitatus assumpsit for $1000, although the use ancl occupation were not worth so much.</p>

suggested the death of North, and, in open court, directed the appearance of the administrators to be entered, which was done. Afterwards, at the same term, Mr. Morfit, for the defendant, prayed oyer of the letters of administration, and pleaded that the plaintiffs never were administrators. At this term, Mr. Wallach objected to the plea, saying that it was too late, after the plaintiffs had been permitted to appear, and relied on the case*of Wilson v.Codmcm, 3 Cranch, 193.’

In this cause, at the last term, the plaintiffs obtained a verdict for $500, and the defendants moved for a new trial: 1st. Because the verdict was contrary to evidence; 2d. Because new evidence had been discovered; and, 3d. Because the court erred in refusing the instructions moved for by the defendants’ counsel. cited Swann v. Steele, 7 Bast, 210 ; Ridley v. Taylor, 13 East, 175; Wood v. Braddick, 1 Taunt. 104; 1 Montagu, 31; Gow, 59, 67; Dobb v. Halsey, 16 Johns. 38;…

Assumpsit for money had and received. The defendants had refused to pay money deposited by the plaintiffs, whereby the defendants had incurred the penalty of twelve per cent, interest for 106 days, at the end of which period they paid the actual sum deposited with simple interest at six per cent. The balance claimed was $210.49. But before the defendants paid the deposit, the plaintiffs brought suit for the whole deposit, with twelve per cent, interest.

Replevin, for goods taken in execution by the defendant, as marshal of the District of Columbia, at the suit of a creditor of Joseph Letourno.

Covenant upon an agreement under seal, which was in substance as follows: — That Winter and Bowmans of Bath, (in Maine,) owners of the brig James Munroe of Bath, “ agree to let or hire the said brig to the said Simonton, from Bath to Havana, and from thence to Mobile or elsewhere, in any legal trade, for the space of twelve months, at and after the rate of $>425 per month, and the said Winter and Bowmans agree that the said brig shall be tight, stiff, staunch, and strong,…

Petition for freedom by Lizette, John, and Janette, orJeane, children of Joanna, and Nancy, the daughter of Lizette.

Debt on a replevin bond given in the suit of Arguelles v. Wood. The declaration set forth the condition of the bond, and averred, 1. That Mrs. Arguelles did not prosecute her writ with effect. 2. That she did not establish a lawful right to the goods replevied. 3. Nor return the goods, although a return was awarded by the court; and 4. That she did not pay the damages and costs adjudged by the court.

Action on the case for a libel which charged that the plaintiff’s patent for an improvement in winged gudgeons, was a gross imposition, and the plaintiff an impostor.

Habeas Corpus. Upon the return it appeared that Mr. Bill had been committed in execution upon a ca. sa., and had taken the benefit of the prison bounds, upon giving the bond and security required by law, more than a year ago.

A WRIT of error had been sued out by Barry to the original judgment against him, but too late to be a supersedeas; and a ca. sa. against him having been returned non est, a scire facias against Mr. Law as his bail was sued out, and a ca. sa. awarded thereon against him upon which he wqs arrested, and brought into court by the marshal.

<p>Whore proceedings are under the general and ordinary jurisdiction of the Court, as a court of law or a court of equity, many things may he presumed which do not appear upon the record, and evidence will not be permitted, to contradict the presumptions arising from the acts of the Court. But if the proceedings be under a special authority, delegated to the Court in a particular case and not under its general jurisdiction, as a court of common law or of equity, nothing material can be presumed; and the person claiming title under such proceedings must show them to be regular, and to be in a case in which the Court had jurisdiction, and was authorized to do what it has done.</p> <p>The proceedings for the partition or sale of the real estate of an intestate, under the Maryland Act of Descents, 1786, c. 45, § 8, are under a special jurisdiction given to a county court in a particular case, and every thing necessary to their validity must be proved.</p> <p>A sale under that statute is the act of the commissioners, not of the Court, and, to be valid, must be ratified by the Court; and such ratification must be absolute, not dependent upon an act to be done in pais.</p> <p>If all the heirs are minors at the time of the sale, it is void.</p>

moved for a continuance of the cause, on affidavit of the plaintiff, Higgs, which stated, “ that a witness in behalf of the plaintiffs in said suit, to wit, Turbett R. Belton, whose testimony is material, competent, and proper in the said suit, is really wanting from West Florida, and that the plaintiffs have used their proper and reasonable endeavors, to procure the testimony of the said witness, and this deponent verily believes that the said cause cannot be tried with…

The facts of this case, were, that on the 9th of October, 1822, Robert Easter made his deed of bargain and sale to’ Henry Addison, purporting to convey a house and lot in Washington to the said H. Addison and his heirs, to have and to hold to the said “ Henry Addison, his heirs and assigns, to and for the uses, trusts, and purposes following, and to and for no other use, intent, or purpose whatever,” that is to say, to secure a debt of about §300 and interest due by Easter…

In equity. Exception was taken to the auditor’s report, in which a claim of the Bank of Columbia against an indorser was rejected, because the bank had given time to the makers of the note, after judgment against the indorser. cited Bay v. Tallmadge, 5 Johns.

<p>Appeal from the Orphans’ Court, who had removed the appellants, (who had been duly appointed guardians of John W. Ott, an infant,) and appointed the appellee, John T. Ritchie, guardian in their place.</p>

This was submitted to the Court, upon the following case agreed. In 1818, in the Superior Court of Loudoun county, in Virginia, one Shepherd, for the use of Riggs, brought an action of debt against Jacob Dixon, for whom, McDaniel, the present plaintiff, became appearance-bail. At November Rules, 1818, there was an office-judgment against Dixon and McDaniel, his appearance-bail, nisi, which was confirmed at December Rules, 1818.

Assumpsit, for overdraft by defendants, $150. cited Gonsegua v. Willing, 1 Peters, Rep. 305 ; Wise v. Bowen, in replevin in this Court, in 1821, (2 Cranch, C. C. 239,) where Bowen, the defendant, was examined as a witness; Gaither v. Farmers & Mechanics Bank of Georgetown,‘in this Court, in December, 1824, not reported, where Nicholls, a stockholder in the bank, was examined as a witness.

Debt, on the replevin-bond of Mrs. Arguelles and her sureties. The defendant, one of the sureties, pleaded three pleas: 1. That the plaintiff in replevin did prosecute her writ with effect; 2. That she did not make a return of the goods replevied ; and 3. No such record of a judgment for a return.

The writ and declaration in this case were against Samuel McKenney, as indorser of William McKenney’s note. Samuel was arrested, gave bail, appeared, and pleaded.

Debt on the administration-bond of the defendant who was one of the executors of the will of Mr. Brook Beall. The breach assigned in the replication was, that the defendant was indebted to his testator upon bond, as well as upon open account, and that he had not given in or accounted for either of the said debts. To this replication there was a general demurrer, and joinder.

A Rule, on the plaintiff, to give security for costs was laid on the 2d day of the last term. now objected that the rule was laid without any evidence being produced of the non-residence of the plaintiff; and that the defendant must now produce such evidence before he can obtain judgment against the plaintiff upon the rule.

Indictment for unlawfully carrying a challenge to fight a duel. contended that it was necessary for the United States to prove that the defendant knew it to be a challenge. It could not be “ unlawfully ” carried if he was ignorant that it was a challenge. contended that the defendant was bound to know; and that he carried it at his peril.

Indictment for assault and battery. The'defendant had been bound by recognizance before a justice of the peace to appear in this Court to answer for the of-fence. moved the Court to quash the indictment, because the name of a prosecutor was not written at the foot of the indictment before it was sent to the grand jury, according to section 24 of the Virginia Act of November 13, 1792, p. 105. said that where the party has been recognized to appear in this Court to answer for…

Bill in equity to charge the stockholders in the Merchants Bank of Alexandria, personally, for the notes of the bank. The bill states that John Anderson and sixty-one other persons, who are named in the bill and prayed to be made defendants, entered into an association or copartnership, which was commonly known by the name of the Merchants Bank of Alexandria.

This was an action upon a policy of insurance, dated February 16, 1826, whereby the defendants insured the plaintiff $10,000, lost or not lost, at and from Alexandria to St. Thomas and two other ports in the West Indies, and back to her port of discharge in the U. S., upon all kinds of lawful goods and merchandize, laden or to be laden on board the ship Commerce, until the same should be safely landed at St. Thomas, &c. and the United States.

This was an action of debt qui tam, under the tenth and fifteenth sections of the Virginia Act of 21st December, 1792, “ regulating the inspection of flour and bread,” (pp. 229,231.) The declaration had two counts: 1st. Upon the tenth section, for lading on board a ship for exportation twenty barrels of flour, marked “ condemned ” by an inspector; 2d. Upon the fifteenth section, for altering the inspection marks on twenty-four barrels of flour.

This was a bill in equity, filed by Mrs. Foxall against the executors of her husband’s will, and certain trustees under her marriage settlement, for certain provisions of coffee, wine, and brandy, which had been laid in by her husband for the current use and consumption of the family; and also to obtain the use of his servants, who had been employed in a baking business carried on under the superintendence of his son-in-law, Mr. McKenney; and to be reimbursed her travelling…

to set aside an interlocutory' judgment by default, and quash the writ of inquiry; upon affidavit of merits, payment of costs, pleading to issue of the merits instanter, and offering ready for trial. Tidd, 507, 508.

This was a petition for freedom, stating in general terms, that the petitioner is entitled to his freedom, but is held in slavery by the defendant. It was filed on the 3d of April, 1826.

A paper was sent up, purporting to be a prayer to instruct the jury as to the law arising upon certain facts therein stated. It was not certified as a bill of exceptions. *

Debt on the teller’s official bond, against George P. Forrest, the teller of the plaintiff’s bank, and Washington Bowie and Nathan Lufborough, his sureties.

This was the petition of an infant, to be discharged from the custody of the respondent, who claimed him as his apprentice, under an indenture made by one justice of the ■ peace only, for five years’ service. The indenture did not specify the age of the boy, and was not recorded in' the Orphans’ Court, nor seen by that court, nor its approbation, or that of-the mother, who was the only living parent, indorsed thereon.

Bill in equity for. a perpetual injunction, to stay proceedings at law upon a judgment confessed by the defendant at law, the present complainant. . The bill, filed December 2,1819, states that the complainant’s testator was indorser of Merrill’s note, discounted by the Union Bank of Georgetown.

INDebitatus assumpsit, for compensation as engineer of the steamboat Surprize, the plaintiff having been employed and paid as master.

Replevin for a negro woman named Mahala. This canse, which was discontinued at December term, 1826, for want of the defendant’s appearance, was by consent of the parties, at May term, 1827, (ante, 92,) reinstated, with a mutual release of errors, and it was agreed that upon a motion for the return of the property, the whole merits of the cause should be decided.

Indebitatus assumpsit for $60, for a horse sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant. „ The defendant offered evidence, that the original agreement was, that the plaintiff should sell the horse to the defendant for the plaintiff’s draft or bill on the postmaster-general for $60, payable on the 1st of January, 1827.* The sale was accordingly so made, on the 19th of October, 1826.

INDebitatus assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. The defendant, by letter, acknowledged himself to be indebted to the plaintiff, but did not state the amount. A witness testified, that afterwards, and about three years before the commencement of this suit, he forwarded to the defendant an account, a copy of which he annexed to his deposition.

This was an action against an auctioneer, for not accounting for goods deposited with him to be sold at a limited price; as per schedule amounting to $450.18. contended that the auctioneer was not bound by the limitation of price; that if he set them up, he was bound to sell them to the highest bond fide bidder, whatever might be the amount of the bid; and that the auctioneer was not liable if the goods perished because they would not sell for the price limited by the owner.

■ This was an action of debt for $18,000, the penalty of Mrs. Ann Ott’s administration-bond,'in which this defendant, John Litle, was surety. It was brought in the name of the United States, for the use of John T. Ritchie, guardian of John W. Ott, the infant son of Doctor John Ott, upon whose estate Mrs. Ann Ott, his widow, was administratrix.

Assumpsit for use and occupation. Upon the trial, it appeared by the plaintiff’s examination of his -witness, that when demand of the rent was made, the defendant said he had paid it by a check on the Office of Discount and Deposit, on the 9th of August. offered in evidence such a check on the Office of Discount and Deposit, with the bank’s cancelling, mark upon it, payable to the plaintiff or bearer, and the defendant’s own check-book, with a margin corresponding with the…

<p>If two be separately indicted for the same theft, and one he convicted, it is necessary for the United States, upon the trial of the other, to prove that it was a joint theft, and that both were present at the act of taking the goods; but it is not necessary to charge in the indictment that the theft was joint; they may be indicted jointly or severally, as both are principals; if there be a doubt as to one whether he were present, he must be acquitted upon an indictment charging him as principal.</p>

Trover for cord-wood, which had been distrained by the plaintiff, as bailiff of the Bank of Columbia, for rent due to the bank, and left upon the premises, namely, on the defendant’s wharf, and.removed by the defendant. Upon the trial at May term, 1827, Mr: R. P. Dunlop, for the defendant, objected that trover would not lie against the general owner, by a bailiff who has distrained the goods for rent; and cited Wheaton’s Selwyn, 1055.

This was an action -upon the case against the keeper of a public stage-office in Washington, for suffering the plaintiffs’ slave to take passage in the stage-coach from Washington to Baltimore, whereby the slave escaped; and the plaintiffs were put to great trouble and expense in recovering him.

Action of debt upon a replevin-bond, given by one Hardin, who replevied the goods which had been seized by the present plaintiff, Tench Ringgold, marshal of the District of Columbia, upon a fieri facias at the suit of Robert Boone, against one Charles J. Queen. The defendant, Samuel Bacon, was one of Hardin’s sureties in the replevin-bond.

Indictment for knowingly uttering as true, and with intent to defraud E. M. Linthicum and'John Tayloe, the following forged order, namely: — “ Mr. E. M. Linthicum will please let the bearer, John Brown, have such articles as he may choo.se, on my account, to the value of thirty dollars; also twenty dollars in cash, and oblige his friend, Henry Tayloe. For Col. John Tayloe.

Assumpsit upon the defendant’s acceptance of an inland bill of exchange drawn July 1, 1815, by one Okeley at New York, on the defendants at Georgetown, District of Columbia, for $645.73 at six months after date, accepted on the 20th of July, 1815.

Covenant by the assignee of the ground-rent of a lot in Alexandria, conveyed in fee, by the late.General George Washington, to Ezra Lunt, who covenanted for himself, his heirs, and assigns, to pay an annual rent of $73 forever.

Indictment for assault and battery upon Jacob Millan. The indictment had been sent to the grand jury by Mr. Swann, attorney of the United States, in consequence of a presentment of the grand jury at November term, 1827, which stated that evidence had been heard before them whereby it appeared that Richard Shackelford, one of the constables of the county of Alexandria, was guilty of an assault on the body of Jacob Mil-lan, but that the time limited by law for the prosecution…

The defendant was the indorser óf R. B. Lee’s note discounted by the plaintiffs. cited the following authorities: — 7 Bac. Ab. 507; Nesbit v. Smith, 2 Bro. C. C. 579 ; Baird v. Bice, 1 Call, 18; Rees v. Barrington, 2 Ves. Jr. 540 ; Ward v. Johnson,. 6 Munf. 6; Ellis v. Galindo, Doug. 250, note; Hill v. Bull, Gilmer, 149; English v. Earley, 2 B. & P. 61; The People v. Jansen, 7 Johns. 332; Bul. N. P. 275 ; Wilson v. Lenox and Maitland, 1 Cranch, 194; James v. Badger, 1 Johns.

Indictment for shooting John Corse, with intent to disfigure, maim, and kill him. The prisoner requested that he might be permitted to plead without going into the criminal dock, in which prisoners usually stand when arraigned, and which is set apart for that purpose. The attorney for the United States did not assent to it. cited Burr's case, in which the arraignment was dispensed with.

Debt upon a constable’s bond. The breach assigned was that the creditor, A. B., for whose use this suit was brought, had put a note into the hands of Cranston, the constable, to collect; that he collected the money, and refused to pay it over to the creditor. It appeared that he collected it without legal process. denied that they were liable upon their bond for the money thus collected.

Debt for $200, the penalty of an arbitration-bond to abide by the award “ of Jacob Paine and Samuel Boucher, and a third person to be chosen or agreed upon by them, in case they should' not agree upon an award, or any two of them.” objected that the award, which was signed and sealed by the three arbitrators, did not state why it was made by three when only two were named in the bond; and that there was no written evidence of the appointment of Frederick Perley, the third…

<p>If a slave be not brought into the county of Washington for sale, nor to reside permanently, he is not entitled to freedom under the Maryland Act of 1796, c. 67.</p>

<p>An insolvent debtor who has been discharged under the insolvent act, is not liable for the costs of a suit pending at the time of his discharge.</p>

Assumpsit by the last indorser against his immediate indorser of S. Turner’s note, dated 15th October, 1823, for $150 at 60 days, payable to the defendant at the Bank of the Metropolis, where it was discounted for the accommodation of Turner.

Indebitatus assumpsit, for money paid, laid out, and expended by the plaintiff, for the use of the defendant, at his request, and upon an insimul computasset. At the trial a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff by consent, subject to the opinion of the Court upon the following case agreed. . 1 In this case it is agreed that the plaintiff produced in evidence a promissory note, in these words and figures, to wit: “ $950 George Town, November 25th, 1823.

In this case, the Court, as a court :of equity, having issued an injunction commanding the defendants to deliver possession of the land to the purchaser, under its decree, &c., the following statement of the case, and reasons for the decision of the Court, were drawn up, and communicated to the counsel of the parties, at their request, by CRanch, C. J. This was a bill in chancery, filed 11th June, 1822, by William Oneale, in behalf of himself and other creditors of the…

This was a bill in chancery, filed May 19,1825, by the widow and adult heirs of John Granberry, against his infant heirs; stating that John Granberry, of Norfolk, died seized of lots 2, 3, 4, and 5, in square 249, in the City of Washington, and praying that the lots may be divided among the complainants, if divisible without loss, &c., and, if not so divisible, that they may be sold, and the proceeds divided among the complainants, &e., and that a commission may issue “ to…

Motion by Mr. Morfit to quash the execution in this case, because not issued within the year and day after judgment. The judgment was rendered January 9, 1824:; a fieri facias to lie in the office was issued, returnable to April Term, 1824, and so on, from year to year, until September, 1826, when a fieri facias was issued, and returned nulla bona at December Term, 1826. The present execution (a fieri facias) was issued, returnable to this May Term, 1828.

In equity. The case was submitted to the Court upon the following statement. Mr. John Law, in his lifetime, bought a lot on Pennsylvania Avenue, in Washington, at public sale, to be paid for by instal-ments. Some were paid, but not all; and although he built upon the lot, and lived in the house’, he never received a deed for it; but his assigns will receive one as soon as the last instalment is paid.

The bill contained the usual averments in a creditor’s bill.

<p>The Corporation of Washington is not liable to the holder of a sub-ticket, or part of a ticket, for any part of the prize drawn by the ticket. It is only liable to the holder of the whole ticket.</p>

<p>This case was submitted by Mr. Morfit, the plaintiff’s counsel.</p>

Bill in equity to stay waste, filed 15th December, 1827. The bill states that the plaintiff, on the 3d of November, 1825, demised to the defendant a farm called Pleasant Hills, in Washington county, for 99 years, renewable forever, at $200 per an-num, with the privilege in the defendant to purchase the fee-simple at $40 per acre.

This was a petition to the Court to appoint a committee of the estate of Major Wheaton, who was found lunatic in Baltimore ; there being property in this county. t The Court will take notice of the proceedings of a foreign court finding a party lunatic. Ex parte Otto Lewis, 1 Ves. Sen. 298. In Ex parte Gillatn, 2 Ves., Jr. 587, the Solicitor-General said, “ For he had been found lunatic by a competent jurisdiction in the country in which he was.

This was an appeal from the sentence of the Orphans’ Court in Alexandria, ordering the former guardian, G. H. Smoot, to pay over to the new guardian, Gideon Bell, chosen by the ward after the age of fourteen, money which Smoot had received in Pennsylvania under letters of guardianship taken out there, upon his giving bond and security to account there.' The Orphans’ Court in Alexandria has only the same powers which the Orphans’ Court of Maryland have; and in the case of…

Detinue of a slave. -Manly, in 1800, made a deed to Rear-don of a slave called Henry Nokes, for the benefit of Manly’s wife, and such children as he had, or should have, by her. The slave was then only one year old.

having given notice to the defendant to produce them, called for a certain letter and notice of demand and notice of protest. produced the defendant’s affidavit, that he had searched diligently for the letter and could,not find it. He contended that the defendant was not bound to produce the notice, as there had been no order of the Court to produce it, and no notice of a motion for such an order.

his order, under the fifteenth and sixteenth sections of the Act of Congress of March 1, 1823, [3 Stat. at Large, 743,] “ to extend the jurisdiction of justices of the peace in the recovery’ of debts in the District of Columbia.” At the trial, the defendant tendered a bill of exceptions to an opinion of the justice, upon a point of law, which the justice refused to sign, and a motion was now made to compel him to sign it.

Assumpsit for work and labor. Plea of limitations; general replication and issue. offered evidence of mutual dealings and accounts between the parties, and cited Ballantine on Lim. 70, 71. That clause of the statute only applies to merchants, where there are mutual accounts and mutual credits.

Replevin. Defence under an execution upon a judgment ■against George Travers, the plaintiff’s father; and that the bill of sale from the father was void as to creditors, because the possession remained with the father. The evidence was that the son, the plaintiff, lived in the same house with the father, and that no change of possession took place in consequence of the hill of sale.

Replevin for a slave, named Henry, and a clock, the plaintiff claiming them as unadministéred assets of the estate of Robert Brown, of which estate his wife, the late Margaret Brown, deceased, was administratrix.

Assumpsit against John Eliason and Joel Brown, joint merchants, trading under the firm of Eliason & Brown, for goods sold and delivered, &c. While the suit was pending upon the docket, after the arrest of Eliason, and before that of Brown, who was not taken until several terms had elapsed after the arrest of Eliason, the deposition of one Thompson Cockerell was taken on the part of the plaintiff, by consent, with an agreement of counsel on the part of the plaintiff and the…

Assumpsit on a promissory note. Plea, limitations. When arrested by the marshal, in this suit, and shown the writ, which did not designate the amount nor specify the cause of action, the defendants said to the marshal that they would pay the debt, if they were not arrested upon other judgments then existing against them, and compelled to clear out under the insolvent act. They have not been so arrested.

<p>Petition FOR 'feeedom. The defendant, while the widow of Abraham Young, married one Gerard Gibson. The petitioners were her property at the time of her marriage with Gibson; and claimed their freedom under his deed of emancipation, dated October 31, 1826, duly acknowledged and recorded according to the Maryland Act of 1796, c. 67, § 29, by which he emancipates them to be free after his death.</p> <p>The defendant had filed a petition to this Court against Gibson, her husband, for alimony, and obtained an injunction on the 10th of July, 1826, to prevent him from conveying away his property. This suit for alimony was pending at the date of the deed of manumission. He died in the following year.</p> <p>offered in evidence the transcript of the record in the suit for alimony, in order to show that the deed was - made to prevent the defendant from obtaining a sentence for alimony.</p> <p>objected that it was res inter alios acta.</p>

Action on the case for damages for not permitting the plaintiffs, as executors of Robert Brent, to transfer to one John Coyle, 20 shares of stock in the Bank of Washington, standing in the name of them testator, which they'had sold to Coyle for $1,000.

Attachment, by way of execution, upon a judgment recovered by Homans against Zantzinger, for balance due upon a building contract. The attachment was served upon credits in the hands of G. Coombe, who was summoned as garnishee, and pleaded nulla bona. The building contract was dated 17th September, 1816, but not acknowledged and recorded until the 14th of May, 1817.

<p>Where the plaintiff holds the affirmative of any of the issues in a cause, he has a right to open and close the whole case.</p> <p>Upon the plea of property, the plaintiff in replevin has the burden of proof, and the right to open and close.</p>

Petition, by an apprentice, to be discharged from the indentures, because not bound by the Orphans’ Court, but by two justices of the peace, on a day in which the Orphans’ Court was in session; in which case this Court decided, in October last, in the case of Thompson May v. Henry T. Bayne, [ante, 335,] that the justices had no power to bind out an apprentice.

Action on the case, for poundage fees^upon an attachment in favor of Lewis, against Farrow. • The attachment was issued under the Maryland Act of 1795, c. 56.

This was k proceeding by petition in the Orphans’ Court under the testamentary law of Maryland of 1798, c. 101, ch¡ 8, § 20, by James C. Wilson and Ann his wife, who was one of the.distributees, or legatees, of the estate of Thomas B. Beall, against John Rose, one of the executors of that estate, charging him with neglecting to give in a claim against himself in the list of debts due to his testator.

Debt upon a judgment in New York, in February, 1806, and a bond with a warrant of attorney to confess judgment dated January 27,1806.

Bill in equity, for the specific execution of a contract. (See a statement of the bill and answers in this cause, at May term, 1825, upon the motion to dissolve the injunction, 2 Cranch, C. C. 590.) In October, 1828, at an adjournment of May term, 1828, the cause came to final hearing, upon the bill, answers, general replication, and evidence, and was heard on the 30th and 31st of October and 1st of November. The defence consists of new facts, not responsive to the bill.

Bill in equity by the executor of a creditor of Francis Boone, against Walter Clarke and wife, and Thomas Scott and wife, the personal representatives of the said Francis Boone, deceased.

Replevin. Case stated. The plaintiffs’ testator died in January, 1822. His executors sold his personal estate after this distress, that is, after May 30,1827. The taxes, for which the distress was levied, became due to the. Corporation of Georgetown upon his real estate, for the years 1821,1822,1825, and 1826; and to the Levy Court, for the county tax for 1826. The plaintiffs paid the tax for 1821, at the time of taking out the replevin.

Writ of dower in forty-two By the case stated, it appears that the marriage, the seizin in fee by Samuel Blodget, the husband, during the coverture, and his death in 1814, were admitted.

<p>3?or negligence of an agent, his principal only is liable.</p> <p>It is negligence in a stage-office keeper to suffer a slave to go off in the coach by means of a false certificate of freedom; and the stage owners only are liable for the damages.</p>

The injunction heretofore granted in this case to stay proceedings upon two judgments at law, obtained in this Court by Muncaster against Mason, having been dissolved, two writs of fieri facias were issued and levied upon the land of Mr. Mason, in the county of Alexandria, returnable to December term, 1824, but not returned, the sale of the land having been postponed by consent of the parties.

Bill in equity, to charge, with the rent due from Robert Bailey to Mr. Law, the funds in the hands of Mr. Ingle, arising from the sale of goods conveyed in trust by Mr. Bailey to Mr. Ingle, to indemnify Mr. Law (the plaintiff) and General Stewart (the defendant) for any loss they might sustain by reason of certain notes made by Mr. Law, indorsed by General Stewart, and discounted for the use of Bailey.

Bill of inteRpleader, by John Litle against John Ott’s heirs and the heirs of P. B. Key, both of whom claimed the ground-rent from the plaintiff, who was the tenant in possession, under a lease from the administratrix of John'Ott.

Debt on the administration bond of George Lindsay’s ad-ministratrix. -Plea, that there was no return of non est on a capias ad respondendum, nor of a fieri facias against the admi-nistratrix, as required by the Maryland Act of 1720, c. 24. General demurrer.

<p>In debt upon a constable’s bond for not conveying to the plaintiff property alleged to have been sold by the defendant under a fi. fa., the breach is defective in not stating that the execution was levied upon the property, and that the lots were the property of the defendant in the execution, and in not describing the property with sufficient certainty; and is bad, in averring an alternative breach, namely, in not conveying the property to the plaintiff, or in not permitting him to take possession of it.</p> <p>Quaire, whether a constable who sells real estate under a, fieri facias is bound to give a deed to the purchaser: Whether the return of the officer is traversable in a collateral action.</p>

Indictment for larceny. Verdict, not guilty. Clara Selden and Mary Stuart, who were witnesses in the cause, made affidavit, that while in the piazza of the court room, immediately after the verdict, the prisoner, retiring from the court, spoke certain ' opprobrious words, (which were stated in. the affidavit,) and threatened one of them that she would give-her her dose, and that she would be revenged of them both ; that the prisoner is a violent tempered woman, and that they…

<p>If the legal effect of the instrument be the same, whether the words constituting a variance be inserted or not, the variance is not material.</p>

Bill in equity to compel the defendants to admit the plaintiff as a stockholder, and to permit certain shares of stock to be transferred to him on the books of the company. The cause was set for hearing on the bill, answer, replication, depositions, and exhibits.

Indebitatus assumpsit for work and labor. The plaintiff offered evidence of a special agreement for $100 a year, and that the service was performed according to the agreement. The defendant’s counsel objected, that there was no count upon the special agreement.

Bill in equity to compel the defendant, Thompson, to give the plaintiff a proxy or a power of attorney to vote at an election of directors of the Marine Insurance Company of Alexandria, upon 300 shares of the stock of that company transferred by the plaintiff to the defendant in trust as a collateral security for a debt due by the plaintiff to the bank of Alexandria; the plaintiff being in no default and the stock not forfeited, but still standing pledged for the debt, and…

Replevin of a horse taken by the defendant, as marshal, in execution against Dunning, and found in his possession. The plaintiff claimed the property under a sale from Dunning, who testified that he sent the horse to Moore, with a bill of sale; that Moore sent him back to Dunning with the bill of sale, saying that as he had no other horse, he might keep him till he (Moore) should send for him.

Assumpsit for use and occupation. Mr. Daniel Kurtz, being offered as a witness, upon his solemn affirmation, stated that he agrees in principles with the Society of Quakers; has applied to be admitted as a member of the society of Friends, who have the matter under consideration; and that he has done all in his power to be admitted. objects, that the witness is not within the words of the Act of Maryland of 1797, c. 118, nor of the Bill of Rights, ) 36.

Assumpsit against the drawer of a draft upon M. S. C. Clarke, indorsed to Hyers, Bremner, and Burdett. The plaintiffs, having proved the handwriting of the defendant, offered to prove by Mr. Barrell, one of the plaintiffs’ counsel, that Mi-.

Indebitatus assumpsit, 1st, for matters properly chargeable in account, “ as by a particular account thereof, herewith into court exhibited, appears;” but no account was therewith exhibited. 2d. General indebitatus assumpsit for goods, wares, and merchandise sold and delivered. 3d. Quantum meruit for goods, &c. sold and delivered. 4th. The common money counts ; and 5th. Insimul computasset.

This cause now came before this Court .upon the venire de novo awarded, in pursuance of the mandate of the Supreme Court, at January term, 1828, (see 1 Peters, 37); and, in the course of the trial, (Morsell, J., not sitting,) this Court, at the prayer of Mr. Key, for the defendant, instructed the jury, in effect, that if they should be satisfied, by the evidence, that the defendant’s note, upon which this suit was brought, was indorsed to the plaintiffs by W. W. Corcoran &…

The defendant in this case was arrested on the 1st of May, 1829, in Philadelphia, by a warrant issued at the instance of the United States, upon an affidavit made before a justice of the peace in Washington, D. C., by Mr. Amos Kendall, who, on the 23d of March, 1829, was appointed to the office of 4th auditor in the place of the defendant, who was sent for trial to Washington, by a warrant issued by Judge Hopkinson, under the 33d section of the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Petition for freedom. The petitioners claimed freedom under the will of John Baptist Kirby, by which they were to be free at his death. Some of them were over forty-five years of age at the death of the testator. prayed the Court to instruct the jury that if any of the petitioners were over the age of forty-five at the testator’s death, the manumission was void as to them ; and. cited Burroitgh v. Negro Arma, 4 Harr. & Johns, and Hamilton v. Cragg, 6 Har. & Johns. 16.

This was p, motion for judgment against a stockholder, for instalments due upon the shares subscribed for by him in the stock of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company; ten days notice of the motion having been given, according to the fifth section of the charter granted by Virginia, and confirmed by the States of Maryland and Pennsylvania, and by the United States; by which it is enacted that “ whenever any subscriber shall fail to pay any instalment called for by the…

This was a motion by Mr. F. S. Key, to set aside an inquisition which had been taken and returned to the Court, condemning, for the use of the canal, a lot in Georgetown, owned by him. The cause was argued by him and Mr. Jones, on the 23d and 25th of May, 1829. The statement of the case will appear in the opinion of the Court, which on the 20th of July, was delivered by

The petition for freedom, in this case, stated that the petitioners, Thomas Butler, his wife Matilda, their three children, Airey, Reason, and Sally, and their two grandchildren, Lydia and Eliza, were entitled to their freedom, but were held in a state of slavery by the defendant, Gabriel Duvall, contrary to law, and that they were about to be sold out of this District to foreign purchasers.

The indictment in this case contained three counts : 1. The first count charged that the defendant, “ being an evil-disposed person, a common slanderer and disturber of the peace and happiness of her quiet and honest neighbors, on the 1st of June, 1829, and on divers days and times, as well before as afterwards, was, and yet is, a common slanderer of the good people of her neighborhood, in which she, the said Ann, resides, that is, at the county aforesaid, and on divers…

The first and third counts of this indictment having been adjudged bad upon demurrer, [ante, 618,] the cause now came on for trial upon the general issue on the second count. called a witness to testify to a particular instance of the defendant’s scolding. objected that particular instances could not be given in evidence, the offence consisting in her being a common nuisance. The CouRT, however, (nem. con.) overruled the objection.

Bill for injunction, demurrer and answer, and motion to dissolve the injunction.

A verdict was taken for the plaintiff for f300, subject to the opinion of the Court upon a case which stated, that Margaret Delany, being indebted to the plaintiff as administrator of Thomas Delany in the sum of $300, intermarried with the defendant, who, in right of the marriage, received more than sufficient property to pay the debt; which property remained in his possession after the death of his wife.

Scire facias against the administrator, trustees, and terre-tenants of S. Eliot, deceased.

This suit was docketed by consent, to recover the rents which accrued after the death of the testator’s wife.

MemoRandum. August 6, 1829. The foreman of the grand jury came down, and stated that a Mr. Sanderson had refused to answer who was the author of a certain publication in “ The Baltimore Republican,” supposed to reflect upon the Court and Jury, in the trial of the cases of The United States v. Watkins, although he said it was “ confessedly” written in this district; and that he said he could not answer the question without implicating himself.

Assumpsit, for one fourth part of the prize of fj10,000, drawn upon ticket No. 1037, in the first class of a lottery called “ The National Lottery.” The declaration contained four counts : 1.

Incictment for assault and battery upon Robert Walker. No prosecutor’s name was written upon the indictment. moved the Court to quash the indictment for that reason, which was done, (MoRsell, J., absent,) upon the authority of United States v.- Hellrigle, at November term, 1827, [ante, 179,] and United States v. Shackelford, at April term, 1828, [mite, 287,] although the defendant had been recognized by a justice of the peace' to appear at this term to answer for the…

Upon the venire de novo issued under the mandate of the Supreme Court, in this case, (see 1 Peters, 36,) the plaintiffs had given notice to the bank (the defendant,) to produce at the trial the letter-books of the bank, from its institution down to the year 1825, to be used in evidence.

Detinue, for three negroes who were born while Hannah, their mother, was in the possession of James Anderson, under the following instrument: “ Alexandria, March 1,1816. “ I have this bo’t of Mr. Jessey Scott, Hannah and her sonn John; Hannah to serve twelve years, and John untull he is thirty-five years old, and then both to be free; for the faithful performance of which I bind myself, my heirs, &c. “ Test, Jas. W. Scott.” “ Jas.

Assumpsit by the last indorser against the first-indorser of a promissory note made by T.- Mason,' payable to and indorsed by the defendant, Richard B. Mason, and by H. Ashton. The note was offered for discount, but the .bank required a town indorser, and the plaintiff, who resided in Alexandria, indorsed it. It was then discounted for the benefit of the maker, and, at maturity, paid by the plaintiff.

<p>Appeal from an order of the Orphans’ Court, which rejected certain depositions which had been taken under a commission issued by that court, without the consent of the parties, and directed to any “ notary-public, justice of the peace, or mayor, in England, Ireland, or elsewhere.” (See the Act of Virginia of November 29, 1792, p. 279, § 13.)</p>

INDictment at common law for keeping a common gaming house, and procuring divers idle and evil disposed persons to frequent and come to play together at a certain unlawful game called faro, for divers large and excessive sums of money; to the great damage and common nuisance of the good citizens of the United States, to the evil example, &c. Verdict guilty, subject to the opinion of the Court upon the fact that the defendant has been convicted and fined, by a justice of the…

The bill, in this case, states the intermarriage of the plaintiffs in 1812, or 1813, the wife being the daughter of George King, who was then universally supposed to be wealthy, and was seized of a house and lot in Cecil Alley, in Georgetown, which was very much out of repair, and which the plaintiff Josiah, at the request of the said George King, who said he always intended that property for his daughter, (the plaintiff,) repaired, at the expense of $4,000, and occupied it…

Assumpsit upon the defendant’s promissory note, payable to G. Docker, or order, and by him indorsed to plaintiffs. Upon the plea of limitations, the plaintiffs’ witness testified that he overheard the defendant say to his companions, who were no parties to the note, that he owed no debt, excepting one $500 note to the Bank of Columbia.

The petitioner, negro Maria, claimed her freedom by reason of importation, contrary to the Act of Maryland, 1796, c. 67; by the first section of which it is enacted, “ that it shall not be lawful to import or bring into this State, by land or water, any negro, mulatto, or other slave, for sale, or to reside within this State.

Indictment for larceny. The prisoner’s daughter, who is a slave, was offered as a witness for the United States. objected that a slave is a witness against a slave only, or a free negro or mulatto, “ during his servitude by law,” and cited the Acts of Maryland of 1717, c. 13, and 1751, c. 14.

The Court having at December term, 1828, ordered the judgment to be arrested, and a venire de novo, (ante, 420,) Mr. G. C. Lee, for the plaintiff, moved the Court for a reconsideration of the question of law; and contended, on the authority of the case of The Mechanics Bank v. Minor, 1 Peters, 67, that the averment of the non-payment of the,.penalty is a sufficient breach, after verdict.

Debt upon an appeal-bond; given upon the issuing of a writ of error, upon a judgment of this Court, against Peter R. Beverly, in favor of Henry St. George Tucker. The bond was given by the said P. R. Beverly, as principal, and the defendant, Henry Lee, as surety.

The case was argued by and by Mr. Tabbs, for the defendants, who cited Horner v. Moore, 5 Burr. 2604; Skinner v. Dayton, 19 Johnson, R. 513 ; Gordon v. Austin, 4 T. R. 611; Cabell v. Vaughan, 1 Saund. 291; Long-more y. Rogers, Willes, 288 ; Tidd, 527 ; 1 Chitty, 643, that if every member of a firm be present, and one seals for all, it is the deed of all; but he cited no authority to that point.

Ejectment for lots in Georgetown, D. C. The plaintiff’s lessors were aliens and claimed as heirs at law of James Bed-man, who was born in England, came to this county in 1793, and went through the forms of naturalization prescribed by the laws of Pennsylvania, passed in 1789, and by the law of Maryland, passed in 1779. Congress had passed a general naturalization law in the year 1790.