Volume 43 — United States Reports

This case WasbrQught up by writ of error from tbe Circuit Coprt of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi. It was a suit upon a sheriff’s bond, given by Bland, sheriff of Claiborne county, dated 10th November, 1837, and in the penalty of $15,000.

This case was brought up by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district' of Mississippi', and arose upon the following statement of facts. At some period prior to the 13th day of February, 1839, James W. Breedlove, the defendant in error, had recovered a judgment in, the Circuit .

This case was brought up by writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the. district of Maryland, and was an ejectment for 100 acres of land, lying in Alleghany county, in that state. The plaintiff, who was also plaintiff, in the court below, claimed title under a sheriff’s sale; but the opinion of the court, upon a case stated, being against him, he brought it up to this court.

This case-was brought up by a writ óf error from the Circuit Court of'the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana, The case was this. On the 27th of July, 1838, Charles Bishop executed the follow-^ ing' promissory note: Donaldsonville, 21th July, 1838. In all the month of May next, 1839,1 promise to pay H.. Williams and'A.'F. Rightor or order, the sum of'five thousand dollars, Value received. (Signed) Charles Bishop.

<p>The original jurisdiction of this court does not extend to the-case of a petition by a private individual, for a habeas corpus to bring up the body of his infant daughter, alleged to be unlawfully detained from him.</p>

This case was brought up by writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district of Mississippi. The suit was brought in the court below by the endorsee against the endorser of the following promissory note:— $2800. Clinton, Miss., January 20th, 1837. On' the first day of January, eighteen hundred and forty, we, or. either of us, promise to pay Robert Mathews, or order, twenty-eight hundred dollars, for value received. R. E. Stratton, Saml.

This was a case brought up by writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district of New York. Banks had recovered a judgment in that court, against Knapp, for $1720.

In the Circuit Court of the United States for the western district of Pennsylvania, Harriet Bishop, the defendant in error and a citizen of the state of Ohio, obtained a judgment against Stockton and Moore for $6500 damages and costs, on the 7th of December, 1843.

Held: that it was .immaterial whether the entry was made on the lands claimed by the Ghickasaws- or not; it could only be obnoxious to the provisions of the statute of 1779, if made on lands reserved from location by that act; and the lands of the Chickasaws were not thus reserved.

Held: that where the corporation has a legal capacity to take real or personal estate, there it may take and hold it upon trust, in the same *188 manner and to the same extent as a private person may do. It is true that, if the trust be repugnant to, or inconsistent with the proper purposes for which the corporation was created, that may furnish a ground why it may not be compellable to execute it.

<p>Under the late bankrupt act of the United States, the existence of a fiduciary . debt, contracted before the passage of the act, constitutes no objection to the discharge of the debtor from other debts.</p> <p>A factor, who receives the money of his principal, is not a fiduciary within the meaning of the act.</p> <p>A bankrupt is bound to state, upon his schedule, the nature ol' a debt if it be a fiduciary one. Should he omit to do so, he would be guilty of a fraud, and his discharge will not avail him; but if a creditor, in such case, proves his debt and receives a dividend from the estate, he is estopped from afterwards saying that his debt was not within the law.</p> <p>But if the fiduciary creditor does not prove his debt, he may recover it after-wards, from the discharged bankrupt, by showing that it was within the exceptions of the act.</p>

This case came up by appeal from tbe Circuit Court of the United States, for the district of Maryland, .having originated in the District Court. On or about the 30th of June, 1840, the brig Malek Adhel sailed from New York bound to Guayamas, in California, under the command of Joseph Nunéz. The vessel was armed with a cannon and some ammunition, and there were also pistols and daggers on board.

This was an appeal from the chancery side of the Circuit Court of thé United States for the District of Columbia. The case was not reached in regular order, but a motion was made, under the rule, to dismiss the'appeal-under the following state of facts. A final decree was pronounced in the court below on the 10th of May, 1843, from which an appeal was prayed.

This case was brought up by writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district of Mississippi. In 1838, the following promissory note was executed: 2899 rfifc Princeton', Washington co.,May 11th, 1838.

This was a motion made' by Thomas Griffin and Hugh Erwin to havé -satisfaction- entered on an execution offieri facias, which issued from the clerk’s office' of the court against them on the 4th day of June, 1840, in favour of Robert Thompson, for the sum of $>1*740 02, with interest thereon at the rate pf 8 per cent, per annum, from the 7th day of November,-1839, until 'paid, together with costs.

This case came up on a certificate of division in opinion, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district of Mississippi. Buckhannan, Hagan and Co. recovered a judgment in the court below against Tinnin, and issued a fieri facias on the 16th December, 1839. A part of the money was received in bank-notes, under the circumstances stated in the motion to quash that part of the return, upon which motion the judges were divided in opinion.

This cause was brought up by writ of error from the' Circuit Court of- the' United States' for the southern''district of Alabama. In'1818 and 1820, the. following promissory note and duérbill. were given• $3,428 18. 30th September, 1818. Four months after daté I promise to pay Grant and McGuffie, or order, three thousand four hundred and twenty-eight dollars eighteen cents, value récsivéd. Wm. Matkeson. Endorsed, Guaní and McGuffie. Charleston, 25th Februaryj 1820.

This case came up; by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Missouri. It was an ejectment brought by the-plaintiffs in error (who were also plaintiffs in the court below) against the defendant..

This case was brought up by writ of error from the Supreme Court of the territory of Wisconsin, under the 25th section of the Judiciary act of 1789. It was an ejectment to recover certain lands in the possession of Linns Thompson, the tenant in possession,, at Green Bay, in the county of Brówn and territory of Wisconsin. The plaintiffs in error were also plaintiffs below.

Held: in Strother v. Lucas, 12 Peters, 454: "That a grant may be *373 made by a law as well as a patent pursuant to a law, is undoubted, and a confirmation by a law is as fully, to all intents and purposes, a grant, as if it contained, in terms, a- grant de novo.” And as, according to the laws of Missouri, an action of ejectment could be prosecuted on Chouteau’s title, by force of the confirmation,'the construction of the…

This cage was brought .up by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United. States, for the District of Columbia and county of Alexandria.

This was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, in and for the county of Alexandria, sitting as a court of equity. The case was this. In the years 1824 and 1828 Jane Dade -executed two deeds of trust to one William Herbert, for the purpose of securing a debt which she owed to Thomas Irwin, the deceased.

<p>The distinction between writs of error and appeals cannot be overthrown by an agreement of counsel in the court below, that all the evidence in the cause shall be introduced and considered as a statement of facts;</p>

This case came before the court at the last term,- and is reported in 1 Howard, 282. It was brought up again on a motion to dismiss the appeal.

Held: that the petitioner, was entitled to his liberty. To revise this judgment, the writ of error has been prosecuted.

Held: from the bill, answer, and evidence, that they were not delivered to Brown, either as a payment of a debt to himself, or to secure him from responsibility to another. Held also, that Brown had no legal or equitable interest in them at the time of the rendition of the decree. The rights of the parties as they stand when the decree is rendered, are to govern, and not as they stood at any preceding time.

This case was brought up by writ of error, from the Circuit Court' of the United States for the southern district of NewYork. The facts were these: Robert McCalmont and the other defendants in error, were co-partners in trade, in London, trading under the name of.McCalmont, Brothers and Company. In the year 1838, J. and A. Lawrence were merchants who resided at Brooklyn, near New York, in the same house with their mother, Susan Lawrence, the plaintiff in error.

Held: That this court has no power to grant the relief prayed. This case was brought up*by appeal from the Superior Court for the district of East Florida.

This case came up by writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of. South Carolina.

This case was brought up by writ of error, from the United States Circuit Court of thé District of Columbia for the county of Alexandria. Julia Roberts, a coloured woman, sued in the Circuit Court for her freedom under the following circumstances.

This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of South Carolina. Letson, a citizen of New York, brought an action of covenant against the Louisville, Cincinnati, and Charleston Rail-road Company, alleging that they had not fulfilled a contract with him relating to the construction of the road. The suit was brought in November, 1841.

Held: after referring to the cases in 10 Ves. 110, and 3 Madd. Rep. 138, that the general assets of the testator were not liable to the claims of any creditors of the firm who became such after the testator’s death; and that such creditors had no lien on the estate in the hands of the devisees under the will, although they might eventually participate in the profits of the trade.

This case was brought up, by writ of error, under the 25th section of the Judiciary act, from the Supreme Court of the state of Alabama. On the 24th of March, 1832, a treaty was made between the United States and the Creek tribe of Indians, east of the Mississippi river. The articles of this treaty which bear upon the present case are as follow: “ Article I. The Creek tribe of Indians cede to the United States all their lands east of the Mississippi river. “ Art. II.

Held: when-Pollard’s title was before it, formerly, that Congress had the power to grant the land to him by the act of 1836: on this point there was no difference of opinion at that time among the judges.

Held: that the proceedings in the *615 courts of the United States should be the same as they-were in the several states at the time of passing the acts of Congress, subject to be altered by the Circuit Courts, or regulations of the Supreme Court.

Held: that a will alleged to be lost or destroyed and which has never been proved, cannot be set up as evidence of title, in an action of revendication.

Held: that the fraudulent ■grantor remains the legal owner of the property, not because, his deed *682 is not binding on him, or his heirs, but the law has put it out of. his power to-divest himself of property, by a, deed designed to ¡defraud creditors; he therefore holds the legal title in trust for his creditors, and for the-purpose of applying it to the payment of his debts, is as fully the legal owner after the…

Held: and so instructed the jury, that the action was maintainable. That the set-off or credit claimed by the defendants was governed by the statute of Maryland.