Volume 36 — United States Reports

Held: to assert, their rights to the soil. In the aet of ratification by Pennsylvania, it was resolved, “ That although the conditions annexed by the legislature of Virginia to the ratification of the boundary line agreed to by the commissioners of Pennsylvania and Virginia, on the 31st of August,. 1779, may tend to countenance some unwarrantable claims which may be made under the state of Virginia, in consequence of…

The plaintiff in error filed his petition in the court below, averring that he was a citizen of and resident of. the state of Ohio, claiming that the defendant, Amos Webb, who was also averred to he a citizen' and resident of the state of Louisiana,- with Mary Ann Smith, in her Own capacity, and also as tutrix to Catharine Smith and Sarah Smith, minor children, and heirs of Jedediah Smith, who is now deceased, and whom the said Mary Ann, as his widow, now survives, having,…

IN error from the circuit court of the district of Ohio. The plaintiff in error instituted an action of ejectment in the circuit court of Ohio, at December term, 1834, against the defendant, to recover a lot. of ground in the city of Cincinnati. Both the plaintiff and the defendant claimed title under deeds from John Cleves Symmes, the original grantee of the United States, for all the land on which the city of Cincinnati is erected.

ON a certificate of division from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Maine. An action of trespass was instituted in 1SS5, in the circuit court of the district of Maine; and the question between the plaintiff and the defendant was as to the title in certain lots of ground, described in the declaration, in the county of Penobscot, jn the state of Maine.

In the circuit court of Rhode Island¿ the appellee, John Hammond, filed a bill praying that a certain instrument in writing, executed by him and the appellant, in January, 1832, by which he had stipulated to allow to the appellant a compensation for establishing a claim on the Portuguese government, for the illegal capture of a vessel belonging to him, should be cancelled; the consideration for the said stipulation having failed.

Held: that the provisions of the act of congress do not apply to such cases. The object of the law was to put an end to the slave trade, and to prevent the introduction of slaves from foreign countries. The language of the statute cannot properly be applied to persons of colour who were domiciled in the United States; and who are brought back to their place of residence, after their temporary absence.

Held: that there was no error in the instructions of the district court. Evidence to show that the original parties to the bill of exchange were citizens of the same state, if offered to affect the jurisdiction of the court, is inadmissible under the general issue; a plea to the jurisdiction should have been put in.

The United States instituted an action of debt on a joint and several bond executed on the 8th of December, 1816, by Salathiel Curtis, Jacob Leffler, Isaac Leffler, Benjamin Biggs, and Reuben Foreman, conditioned for the faithful performance by Salathiel Curtis, of the duties of collector of taxes, then held by him. The cause abated as to Biggs and Foreman, by their deaths.

Held: the power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and the delegation, of a'dmiralty and maritime jurisdiction. In all othef cases, not falling within the classes already mentioned, it seems unquestionable that the states retain concurrent authority with congress; not only upon the letter and spirit of the eleventh amendment of the constitution, but upon the soundest principle of reasoning.

On the 18th of September, 1833, Cox, the defendant in error, applied, by petition, to the judge of the district court of the United States for the eastern- district of Louisiana, for an injunction to forbid all further proceedings on a warrant, then in the hands of the marshal, issued by the solicitor of the treasury, under the act of the 15th of May, 1830, and by which the marshal was directed to levy and collect the sum of 4,163 dollars 50 cents, then appearing to be-due…

An action of ejectment was instituted by the lessee of William Hoey against James M‘Bride, the tenant of William Clarke, in the common pleas of Mercpr county, to recover a tract of land in that county. The plaintiff obtained a verdict; and judgment on the same was rendered by the court; and the case Was carried by writ'of error to the supreme court of the western district of Pennsylvania, where the judgment was affirmed.

Mr. Butler, Attorney-general, moved the Court for a rule on the dis-. trict judge of the'United States for .the-district of Missouri, to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not be issued, • commanding him to order an execution to issue on the judgment of the said district court in this case.

AN appeal from the district court of the United States, for East Louisiana.

Poole v. Fleeger, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 185 (1837), is a 7-to-0 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the states of Kentucky and Tennessee had properly entered into an agreement establishing a mutual border between the two states. The plaintiffs in the case were granted title to property improperly conveyed by the state of Tennessee north of this border. In the ruling, the Supreme Court asserted the fundamental right of states and nations to establish their borders regardless of private contract, and made a fundamental statement about the rights of parties to object to a trial court ruling under the rules of civil procedure.

Held: that in such a policy, a loss which was remotely caused by the master or.the crew, was a risk taken in the policy; and the doctrine in the English cases already cited, was approved!

Mr. Green, the attorney-general of the State of Rhode* Island, moved the court for a continuance of this' cause. He stated, that at the session of the general assembly of Rhode Island, in January, 1836, a resolution was passed, associating Mr. Hazard, with the attorney-general of the state, as counsel in the cause.

<p>The appellants filed a bill in the circuit court of Pennsylvania, elaiming to have a bond and mortgage cancelled and delivered up to them. They, alleged that the same was given without consideration; was induced by threats of a prosecution for a criminal offence against the husband of the mortgagor; and that the instruments were, therefore, void; and that they were obtained by the influence the mortgagee exercised over the mortgagor, he being a clergyman, and her religious visiter; and her mind being weak or impaired. -¿The circuit court of Pennsylvania dismissed the bill; and on appeal to this Court the decree of the circuit court was affirmed.</p> <p>A court of chancery will often refuse to enforce a contract, when_.it would also refuse to annul it. In such a case, the parties are left to their remedy at law.</p> <p>No admissions in an answer to a bill in chancery can, under any circumstances, lay the foundation for relief under any specific head of equity; inless.it be substantially set forth in the bill.</p>

Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 257 (1837), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States involving the intersection of states' rights and monetary policy. In an opinion by Justice John McLean, the Court held that a bank under the de facto control of the state of Kentucky could issue banknotes without violating a provision of the Constitution that forbade states from issuing "bills of credit". The 6–1 decision demonstrated the Taney Court's support for Jacksonian principles of states' rights and opposition to federal control of banking.

Held: that the act of 1824 was a virtual repeal of all previous acts of congress on the subject; 650.

Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 420 (1837), was a case regarding the Charles River Bridge and the Warren Bridge of Boston, Massachusetts, heard by the United States Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney.