Volume 5 — United States Reports

Talbot v. Seeman, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 1 (1801), was a United States Supreme Court case. It involved maritime law, specifically the circumstances under which salvage rights attach to a neutral vessel captured by enemy forces and then recaptured by the United States Navy.

Held: that the commerce of Bremen, though neutral, could not be carried on through the Weser. This, he admitted, was a great inconvenience to the neutral city, which had no other outlet to the sea; but it was an incident of her situation and of war. It happened in that case that a relaxation of the blockade,in favor of Bremen warranted restitution.

Wilson v. Mason, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 45 (1801), was a United States Supreme Court case. It resolved a dispute between George Wilson and Founding Father George Mason over 8,400 acres (34 km) of land along the Green River in present-day Kentucky.

G-. Brown was boarded in the- Atchafalaya River, while on her way te Brash ear City', by the United' States gunboat Wyanza, Captain Washbuvne, and after some investigation the cargo of the Brown was pronounced prize of war. She followed the gunboat into Brash ear City, her cargo was landed there, and put on the railroad which connects that place with New Orleans, and sent to the latter city in charge of a person calling himself a prize-master.

, appellants in the suit, having issued writs offieri facias on certain judgments which they had recovered in the Circuit Court for the District of Maryland against Wroth & Fullerton, caused them to be levied on the entire stock in trade of a retail dry goods store in Baltimore, in 'the possession of one Sutherland, the appellee.

The bill set forth a mortgage executed by Megeath and Bovey, duly acknowledged on the 17th April, 1858, and duly recorded on the same day. It stated that Simpson claimed some interest in the mortgaged premises, and prayed that he also be made a defendant. The bill was taken pro confesso against Megeath and Bovey.

This was a question involving the proper disposition of the surplus proceeds of the sale of the schooner Harriet Boss in the Admiralty Court of the Northern District .of Illinois. The schooner had been libelled in that court for supplies furnished, to the value of $72, and sold for about $5000. While the surplus proceeds of this sale were still in the registry, the Corn Exchange Insurance Company fled a libel against them.

against a railroad . company to-recover damages for the death of a passenger killed by its negligence. A statute of Illinois -enacts: “ Sect. 1.

United States v. Schooner Peggy, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 103 (1801), was a United States Supreme Court case. It was one of a series of cases resolving disputes over ships captured during the undeclared Quasi-War between the United States and France from 1798 to 1800. The vessel was ordered returned to France.

On the 14th of July, 1862, Congress passed “an act increasing temporarily the duties on imports and for other purposes.” The 14th section was as follows: .“And be it further enacted, That from and after the day and year aforesaid [August 1st, 1862], there shall be levied, collected, and paid on all goods, wares, and merchandise of the growth or produce of countries beyond the Gape of Good Hope, when imported from places this side of the Gape of Good Hope, a. duty of ten per…

Resler v. Shehee, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 110 (1801), was a United States Supreme Court case that involved judicial discretion on whether to hear appeals filed late.

This ease, which was brought up by a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts, was submitted to the court below upon an agreed statement of facts, substantially as follows: Shelton & Co. — the plaintiffs in error, who were also the plaintiffs- below — imported a quantity of molasses from the island of Cuba into the port of Boston. At the time of the exportation from Cuba it was sound and sweet.

Held: that not even payment to the creditor himself could excuse the non-performance of this duty. The rigor of this rule has been considerably relaxed, but the form of the writ, as directed by a late act of the legislature of Virginia, yet is, that the money shall be in court on the return day, and there appears no excuse for omitting this duty, unless *137 it shall have been paid to the creditor.

be continued to the use or uses to which such lands, tenements, hereditaments, or other estates, have been, or shall be, given and granted, according to the true intent and meaning pf the grantors, and to no other use whatsoever; and also be exempted out of the general lists of estates, and free from the payment of rates.” This act being thus in force, William Stanley, of Hartford, Connecticut, in October, 1786, made his will in the material parts as follows: ■ “'Imprimis.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that established the principle of judicial review, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes they find to violate the Constitution of the United States. Decided in 1803, Marbury is regarded as the single most important decision in American constitutional law. It established that the U.S. Constitution is actually law, not merely a statement of political principles and ideals. It also helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the federal government.

During the lato Rebellion, and while the coast of the Southern States, including that of Texas to the mouth of the Rio Grande, was under blockade by the United States, the Dashing Wave, a Britisli-owhed brig, was captured at anchor by a United States gunboat, off the mouth ofdhat river, the dividing stream between the United States and Mexico, a neutral, and libelled as prize of war in the District Court of New Orleans.

The Science had been captured by the American war steamer Virginia, on the same day as the Dashing Wave, and the same decrees were entered'in the District Court in respect to vessel and cargo, and similar appeals were taken.

The brig Volant had been captured, near the mouth of the Rio Grande, on the 5th of November, 1863, by the United States steamer Granite City, and, with her cargo, was condemned, by the decree of the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The case came before this court upon the appeal of the claimants.

<p>A neutral vessel, at anchor, completely laden with a neutral cargo, on the neutral side of a river dividing neutral from hostile water, washing a blockaded coast, was captured as being subject to just suspicion of ah intent to break the blockade.</p> <p>2. The captain of the vessel (whb was, however, absent at the time of capture), and the mate, being examined in preparatorio, testified that she was in neutral waters when captured. A stevedore, yet on board, that she had drifted to the place where she was taken, under stress of weather; he not knowing .whether when captured she was in neutral waters or not.</p> <p>Held, that this preliminary testimony warranted restoration.</p> <p>3. Further proof having been allowed, it appeared that the vessel when captured was a quarter or a half mile within the hostile waters; the mate admitting this fact, but testifying that the vessel had drifted to the s.pot, its' anchor and chain being too light, and he expressing as one reason for not returning to the former anchorage as soon as the wind became fair, . that the captain was in port (about 36 miles distant), with the ship’s papers, and that he did not like to move the vessel without orders; and, as another, that the ship was fully laden and ready to sail, and had been seen by two blockading men-of-war, which did not disturb her, and that he thought the vessel might safely remain where she was till the captain returned; the mate proposing, also, if not .captured, to return at once to the anchorage from which he had drifted. On this,</p> <p>Held, that the case for the captors was not improved by the further proof» and that with the restitution costs and expenses to be paid by the captors, was to be decreed.</p>

Error from the circuit court of the district of Columbia, sitting in the county of Alexandria. This was an action on the case for goods sold and delivered by Young and co. to Clark. The declaration had three counts; one for the price of the goods; one on a quantum valebant; and one for money had and received. The cause came on to be tried in the court below, on the general issue, at April term 1802.

Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana, decreeing restitution of the schooner Jenny and cargo, and decreeing costs and charges against their claimants; the questions involved being of fact chiefly.

Petition for a writ of mandamus. The Circuit Court for the District of Wisconsin having rendered a decree in favor of J. T. Soutter, survivor, &c., against the La Crosse and Milwaukee Railroad Company and the Milwaukee and Minnesota Railroad Company, on the 5th March, 1867, for $40,000, and ordered a sale of the road mortgaged to secure the debt, the last-mentioned company prayed an appeal to this court; which was allowed.

<p>1. The appellate jurisdiction of this court on writs of error, under the twenty-second section of the Judiciary Act, is confined hy the express words of the section to final judgments, and the writ of error should be addressed to the final judgment accordingly.</p> <p>2. A judgment on a motion made by the plaintiff to set aside a writ of restitution which had been issued in favor of the defendant, and to grant a • writ of restitution to the plaintiff in a case, is not a final judgment,, within the terms of the said section ; in fact is but an order of court. Hence no jurisdiction exists of a writ of error based on such a pro. ceeding.</p>

Held: as so expressed, to wit, in sterling money. 6. Sixth. That the defendant offered to examine William Ramsay, one of the drawers of the bill, to which the counsel for the plaintiffs objected, and the court gave it as their opinion, that the said W. Ramsay was an incompetent witness in the cause. The second, third, fourth and fifth exceptions seem to have been abandoned in the argument in this court.

Myers, Kinsly, and. Stout, having obtained judgment against Fenn, filed a bill against him and three other persons named respectively, Thompson, Green, and Roberts,— which last-named person had been Fenn’s general assignee, charging a fraudulent transfer of property by/him to them.

Seaver filed a creditor’s bill against the defendants, in the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois, setting forth a judgment against one of the defendants, for the sum of $839.48, aud, he being insolvent, seeking to get satisfaction of it from a fund exceeding $2000 in the hands of another of the defendants who, it was charged, was in possession of the fund by fraud. Plimpton, who joined in the hi!!, set out a judgment for the'sum of $988.47.

Appeal by the United States from a decree of the District Court of the United States decreeing to the representatives of the Chevalier de Repentigny and of Captain Louis De Bonne, a large tract of land at the Saut de St. Marie, under a grant from the French government, in the year 1751.

This was a writ of error issued from this court to the general court for the territory north-west of the river Ohio, to reverse a judgment rendered in that court against Clarke, the plaintiff in error, in favor of Bazadone, on a foreign attachment for 12,200 dollars damages, and 95 dollars, and 30 cents costs.

Error from the circuit court of the district of Columbia, in an action of covenant by Groverman, owner of the brig Nancy, against Hooe and co. the freighters, for demurrage, at the port of Falmouth, in England, from the 19th of June to the 11th of September, 1798, at the rate of £.6 6 0 Sterling per diem. The declaration alleged the breach of the covenant in not paying the demurrage, and the cause went to trial in the court below, upon the issue of covenants performed.

Error from the fourth circuit court sitting at Baltimore. This was an action on the case, for money had and received by Wood to the use of Robb, the bankrupt.

United States v. Simms, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 252 (1803), was a United States Supreme Court case. It was one of a series of cases dealing with the applicability of previous laws in the newly created District of Columbia.

Error from the judgment of the circuit court of the district of Columbia, sitting at Washington, in an action on the case on a foreign bill of exchange, by the administrators of the indorsee against the indorser.

This was a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey. Robert .Morris Croxall, the plaintiff ill error, in September, 1863, — the year is important, — brought ejectment in that court to recover certain premises in New Jersey.

Error from the circuit court of the district of Columbia, sitting in Alexandria.

Error from the circuit court of the district of Columbia sitting at Alexandria, in an action on the case brought by the defendant in error for money had and, received, which was the only count in the declaration; and to which the defendant pleaded the general issue.

Stuart v. Laird, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 299 (1803), was a case decided by United States Supreme Court notably a week after its famous decision in Marbury v. Madison. Stuart dealt with a judgment of a circuit judge whose position had been abolished by the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801. Stuart's lawyer was Charles Lee, who also represented William Marbury. John Laird asked the Supreme Court to uphold the judge's ruling. Stuart's team argued that only the court rendering a judgment could enforce it and that the Judiciary Act of 1802 had been unconstitutional, to which Stuart lost on both accounts. The Court reviewed and upheld the Judiciary Act of 1802 and averted a dangerous showdown between the legislative and the judicial branches of the United States government.

Error from the circuit court of the district of Columbia sitting at Alexandria. having obtained a judgment against Robert Hamilton, brother of the defendant, ordered the marshall to levy the fieri facias upon sundry goods and chattels in the possession of Robert, the debtor; which was done accordingly; whereupon the present plaintiff, Thomas Hamilton, brought an action of trespass against Russel, claiming the goods by virtue of an absolute bill of sale from his brother…

United States v. Hooe, 5 U.S. (Cranch 1) 318 (1803), is a case of the Supreme Court of the United States. It was a case that hinged mainly on procedural issues relating to the documents that must accompany an appeal from courts within the District of Columbia.

Dunbar, brought suit against T. A. Dwyer, on certain notes given by the said Dwyer.

This was an action of debt brought by Hepburn and Dundas against Colin Auld in the circuit court of the district of Columbia, for the penalty of an agreement dated 27th September 1799, between the plaintiffs, merchants of Alexandria, and the defendant, as agent for John Dunlop and co. merchants in Glasgow.

Held: is not the subject of seizure and sale under judgment and execution against the trustee, whether that trustee be a natural or an artificial person. Judgment affirmed. Note.

Held: that an action of assumpsit could not be brought in a policy of insurance under seal; and the defect is not cured by verdict.

The record showed a libel of information against certain bales of cotton marked C. S. A., as belonging to persons in insurrection against the United States, and the confiscation of which was demanded under the act of 6th August, 1861, entitled “An act to confiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes.” [For the sake or distinction this case was numbered 939.] The act just referred to provides (by its third section, which indicates the persons who may institute…

The steamer had 'gone out of Mobile Bay on the previous night in the dark, and endeavoring, as the captors alleged, to escape, was pursued and on the next morning captured by the Kennebec for breach of blockade. She was, at this time, in a disabled condition owiug to a storm in the night, and on the firing of a gun across her bows hove to, without resistance, and without having changed her course.

The plaintiffs below (or petitioners as they are called in the record) “aver, that they do “severally reside without the limits of the district of Geor-“gia aforesaid, to wit, in the state of Kentucky, there-“fore they have the right to commence their said action “ in this honorable court, &c.”* The defendant is called "Charles Abercrombie, of the district of Georgia, esquire.

This was an action of debt brought by the administrators of Archibald Gardner against Abraham Lindo, upon a promissory note, in the circuit court of the district of Columbia, sitting in Washington. The act of congress respecting the district of Columbia had adopted the laws of Maryland, as the law of this part of the district.

This was an action of covenant brought by Joseph Hodgson against Samuel Dexter, late secretary at war, for not keeping in good repair, and for not delivering up in like good repair at the end of the term, certain premises which had been leased by the plaintiff to the defendant, for the purpose of offices for the war department; the buildings having been destroyed by fire during the term.

<p>A citation must accompany the writ of error.</p>

The case of the Gray Jacket, reported on the last preceding pages, was argued partly on one occasion and partly on another, Mr. JSamcs, who spoke for. the captors, having been taken suddenly and, as the unfortunate issue proved, fatally ill while addressing the court, and the case having been adjourned in the midst of the argument.

An act of Congress of July 13, 1861,* passed during the late rebellion, enacted that goods, chattels, wares, and merchandise coming from or going to a State or section in insurrection, by land or water, along with the vessel in which they were, should be forfeited, — but gave the Secretary of the Treasury a right to remit., And another, passed March 3, 1863,† “ that in all cases now, or hereafter pending, wherein any ship, vessel, or other property shall be condemned in any…

Held: in the case of The Industrie, § that the share of a neutral in ownership, though purchased before the war, vras subject ■to condemnation equally with the shares of enemies in the same ship.

This was a bill in equity, filed in the Circuit Court for Missouri, to enjoin the enforcement of certain judgments rendered against the complainant by the mayor of St. Louis for the amount of alleged benefit to his property from the opening of Wash Street, in that city, and to obtain compensation, for the property of the complainant appropriated by the city for the. use of the street.

Appear from the Court of Claims. The case was, in substance, thus: The United States being engaged in building a large aqueduct at Washington, D. C., De Groot entered into a contract with it to furnish it with several millions of bricks, and to commence the preparation of a brick-yard aud machinery within a time named, so as to perform the contract of delivery.

This was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Middle District of Tennessee.

The question presented for determination in the case related to the location of the southwestern line of the survey of a grant of land in California, made to one Francisco Armijo, which survey was approved by the District Court. The Armijo grant adjoined another grant in California made to one Francisco Solano; and, to understand tho question presented, a statement of the origin and nature of both of the grants is necessary.

This was a proceeding, under the act of March 3d; 1851, for the confirmation of a claim to a tract of land in California known as the rancho of “ Temeseal,’'’ of four square leagues in extent.

Congress, by an internal revenue act of 1864, subsequently amended, enacted that no persons should be engaged in certain trades or businesses, including those of selling lottery tickets and retail dealing in liquors, until they should have obtained a “ license”* from the United States.

. This cause was brought before the court by writ of error to the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, under, the 25th section of the Judiciary Act. Pervear, the plaintiff in error, was indicted in the State court for keeping and maintaining without license a tenement for the illegal sale and illegal keeping of intoxicating liquors.

, merchants of that place. The bill of lading contained the usual clause as to the payment of freight. The vessel reached Charleston safely on the 81st of March, and the master gave notice to Mordecai & Co. of her arrival and of the sugar and syrup on board for them; offering to deliver them on the payment of the freight.

In January, 1857, Hansbrough and Hardin agreed with •one Peck to buy certain lots in Chicago for $134,000. Held: in relation to the title and possession, as of no effect and void, as it respected the vendor and all claiming under or through him.

Held: that an agent, trustee, or consignee could insure, and that it was not'necessary that the assured should have a beneficial interest in the property insured, and the rule established by this case, has ever since been followed by the courts of this country and England. † *514 A trustee, therefore, having the right, is justified in insuring the property, even to its full value, although there is no obligation on him,…

A claim to the vessel was put in by Corry & Laycock, of Manchester, England; and for the cargo, by Ilenry & Co., of the same place. Qn the examination in preparatorio, the only persons on board the ship who were examined were the master, mate, and one seaman.

This was a proceeding fo.r the confirmation of a claim to lauds in California acquired under the Mexican government. The claim was for two tracts, one of which was designated as the Rancho of San Margarita and San Onofre; and the other as the Rancho of Las Flores. The Rancho of San Margarita and San Onofre was acquired under a grant made in May, 1841.

This was an appeal from a judgment.of the Circuit Court for Massachusetts, dismissing a bill in equity, filed by the Merchants’ Insurance Company, a corporation created by the laios of Massachusetts, and having its place of business in the city,of Boston in, that State, against James Ritchie, and E. L. Pierce, the assessor and collector of internal revenue for the third collection district of that same commonwealth, and both citizens of it, praying that they might be…

Held: that the charter-party did not create any lien in respect of that part of the freight which was payable two months after the vessel’s inward report, although the charter-party contained the stipulation that the owners of the ship .should “have ail absolute lien on the cargo for all freight, dead freight, and demurrage.” Latter clause w7as intended, as the court held, not to enlarge the right of lien for freight, as…

This ivas a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. The case in that court arose on a petition by McConnell for a mandamus to command the Commissioner of the General Land Office to cause to be prepared, signed, countersigned, recorded, and issued, a patent to him for the north part of the south half of section No. 10, T. No. 39 W., range 14 É., situate in the city of Chicago.

Goodrich filed a libel in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in a cause of damage, civil and maritime, against the City of Chicago, in personam. Held: that the decision in the State court was “an authoritative adjudication, denying that there is an obligation imposed by law on the City of Chicago to remove obstructions., from its river arid harbor,” and that it was thus decisive, against the libellants, of the present action.

and costs, the steamer Pearl, captured for intent to break the blockade of our Southern coast, established during the late rebellion; the question being chiefly of fact.

A judgment had been rendered in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana, in favor of La Yallette against Jones, in the ordinary action by petition and summons, upon a promissory note. The defendants below took an appeal, seeking to bring the case into this court in that way. Mr. Janin now moved to dismiss the appeal, contending that appeal.was not the proper form of bringing up the case.

This was a suit brought in the Supreme Court (the former Circuit Court) of-'the District of Columbia to recover damages under a special contract set forth in the declaration.

The caso was thus: In April,-1844, Damon and Francisco de Haro presented a petition to the Mexican governor of the province of California for a grant of a tract of land, called the “ Potrero of San Francisco,” situated near the mission of that name.

An act of Congress passed during the late rebellion (July 13th, 1861), prohibited all commercial intercourse between the inhabitants of any State which the President might declare in a state of insurrection, and the citizens of the rest of the United States; and enacted that all merchandise coming from such territory into other parts of the United States with the vessel conveying it should be forfeited.

Held: and well held-, that there was nothing left for that part of the section which directed the payment of the excess into the treasury to operate upon, except the sums received from rent and storage.

.Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Wisconsin. This was an ajipeal by the Milwaukee and Minnesota Railroad Company from an order of court confirming a sale made by the' marshal under a decree of foreclosure of a mortgage on the western division of the La Crosse and Milwaukee Railroad.

Riggs & Co. were bankers in the District of Columbia: Thompson was a business man there, keeping a bank account with them, depositing specie, treasury notes, bank notes, bills for collection, in, the ordinary way of bank customers. Prior to April, 1861, no distinction apparently had been made in the mode of entering, in his pass-book, credits of coin and credits of current bank notes, then payable throughout the country in coin, on demand.

In August, 1846, Congress granted to the then Territory,- and now State, of Iowa— “ For the purpose of aiding said Territory to improve the navigation of the Des Moines River from its mouth to the Raccoon Fork, so called, in said Territory, one equal moiety, in alternate sections, of the public lands, in a strip five miles in width on each side of said river.” The Des Moines River, to assist the improvement of whose navigation this grant was made, rises in the very north…

them by a sight draft. ■ The flour was not delivered, and the purchasers, Towne & Washburne, aforesaid, brought assunvpsit for the non-delivery. The declaration contained a special count, and also the common.counts.

The fourth section of á statute of Illinois, passed June 21, 1852, and incorporating the city of Galena, declares that the'city council “may,-if the said city council believe that the public good and the best interests of the city require,” annually collect a tax, not exceeding one per cent, on a dollar on the assessed value of all estate taxable in the city, in addition to all other taxes; the fund to be kept separate, and annually, on the 1st of January, paid over, pro…

This was a writ of error to the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Kinzie Bates, the plaintiff in error, brought an action of ejectment in that court against Brown, the defendant in error, to recover certain premises. The cause was submitted upon an agreed statement of facts, which, so far as it was necessary to consider them, were as follows: 1.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 limits the jurisdiction of the Federal coürts, so far as determined by citizenship, to “ suits between a citizen of the State in which the suit is brought and a.citizen of another State.” An act of 1833,* “ to provide further for the collection of duties on imports,” extended the jurisdiction to cases arising under “ the revenue laws of the United States,” where other provision had not been made.

These we're three distinct cases involving, however, with certain differences, essentially the same question, ;argued on the same day and by the same counsel.

by native Indians (Senecas, chiefly), and known respectively as the Alleghany, Cattaraugus, Buffalo Creek, and Tonawanda reservations, entered, at the conclusion of some disputes, into an agreement with the State of New York by ■which New York ceded to Massachusetts, and her grantees, in fee, the right of pre-emption from those Indians and all estate in the reservations, except jurisdiction and sovereignty, which it was agreed should belong to the State of New York.

Held: that the required number of quali *779 fiecl votes were given on the fifth day of April, 1853, and that the board of supervisors of the county, on the fourteenth day of November, 1854, made an order, and recorded it, that the county do subscribe one hundred thousand dollars to the stock of the company named in the bonds; and that the board, on the same day, passed another order to empower the chairman of the board…

On error to the Circuit Court for the Northern District pf Illinois; the case was thus: Crawford & Co.,in 1860, were coal dealers in Cleveland, and at the same time Kelly & Maher were coal dealers in Chicago.

This was an ejectment in the Circuit Court of the United' States for the District of California, to recover'a lot of land situate on the margin of the bay of San Francisco, loithin Jioe miles of the city, below ordinary high-water mark, and which, contained about forty acres of land under water, but which could be easily reclaimed, and, by the natural growth of the city, would soon become a part of it.

This was an action of ejectment brought in the Circuit Court for the District of Maryland, by Eliza C. Deery, to recover an undivided third part of a tract of land, called Kent Fort Manor, on Kent Island, in Queen Anne’s County, Marryland. The defendants were Cray, Bright, and others, occupying different-parts of the tract. Miss Deery, the plaintiff, was the daughter of Elizabeth Chew, who married William Deery, and afterwards, in second marriage, Eli Beatty.

The appellants were the heirs-at-law of Gr. ~W. Lee, and, on the strength of the title which they had inherited from him, had obtained in the Circuit Couit just.named, a judgment in ejectment against Dodge and others for a part of, lot 4, block 58, of the city of Chicago. The defendants in that action sot up a conveyance from Lee to Lois Cogswell, and showed by sundry mesne conveyances, they were in possession of the lot under that deed.

Several libels were filed in that court for the condemnation, as prize of war, of large quantities of cotton and other property captured on the interior navigable waters of the United States, or on land adjacent thereto. On motion, these .libels were consolidated, and various claims were interposed in the consolidated suit for portions of the property libelled. Among these claims was that of Withenbury & Doyle.

This was a.motion to dismiss an apppal because the bond for the prosecution of the appeal was not filed within ten days after the decree.' It Rppeared that the decree in the Circuit Court was drawn and placed in the hands of the clerk on the 15th of November, 1866, upon an understanding by.the counsel, sanctioned by the court, that it was to be entered, wheh approved by the court, as of that day.

<p>Motion to dismiss an appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Nebraska.</p>

<p>A citation to the adverse party, with' due return or waiver by general appearance, or otherwise, is indispensable to jurisdiction on appeal.</p>

This was an application for a mandamus to the judge of the Circuit Court for the District of Wisconsin, in one part of the railroad -cases connected with the roads between Milwaukee and St. Paul, and which under various names have filled so considerable a part of the reports of this court for the last few terms.

<p>An appeal from California dismissed where the record was not brought, and filed within sixty days of the next term of the court; the record, moreover, not having been returned within the term.</p>

Held: and considered as part of the public domain. *833 2. Confirmed claims only were required under that act to be surveyed, and it is only the surveys of such claims that the District Court, under the second section of the subsequent act, is authorized to order into court for examination and adjudication.