Volume 50 — United States Reports

This case was brought' up, by writ of error, from the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana for the Eastern District.

This was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States fot the District of Columbia, and-County of Alexandria. It was- a bill filed by the Dixions to restrain the appellant from erecting an inclosure in what they claimed to be a public highway, in the town of Alexandria, by which the said highway was obstructed, and the ancient lights of the appellees, looking into the said highway, were darkened; and for an abatement of the nuisance.

These two cases were brought up by appeal, from the Circuit Court, of the United States for the District of Kentucky. The cartes were exceedingly complicated, and cannot be understood without a reference to the following plat. IMAGE The history and facts of the case are given so much in detail in the opinion of the court, that it is unnecessary to do more than refer the reader to that opinion, as delivered by Mr. Justice Catron.

This was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for . the District of Columbia-and County of Alexandria. It was a bill filed by Wheeler under the following circumstances. He was the nephew of Charles Bennett, who died in 1839, leaving neither father nor mother nor brothers nor sisters, nor any descendant of any-brother^ or sister except Wheeler,, who, as above stated, was his nephew.

Held: “ that, where a surety is not bound at law, he will not be made liable in equity.” In the case of Waters v. Riley, 2 Harris & Gill, 310, the Court of Appeals of Maryland say, “ A surety is bound .only by the bond itself, and is not under a moral obligation to pay; equity will not therefore interfere to charge him beyond his legal liability.” The same doctrine- is established by. the Court of Appeals of Virginia, in…

<p>The documents showing the title to Woodworth’s planing-machine are set forth in extenso in 4 Howard, 647, et seq.</p> <p>The assignment from Woodworth and Strong to Toogood, Halstead, and Tyack (4 Howard, 65b) declared not to have been fraudulently obtained according to the evidence in this case.</p> <p>An assignee of Wopdworth’s planing-machine, having a right, under the decision in 4 Howard, to continue the use of the patented machine, has a right to replace new cutters or knives for those which are worn out.</p> <p>The difference explained between repairing and reconstructing a machine.</p>

Held: that the grant, being by Spain in 1806, was to be disregarded, under the principles of Foster and Elam v. Neilson. Les Bois v. Bramell, 4 How. 463 , considers the confirmation. of a Spanish claim by a Board of Commissioners, or by Congress directly, or by the District Courts, by force of the act of 1824, as a location of land, by a law of the United States. Mr. "

This cause was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi. It was an ejectment brought by Richard Jones and wife, against the plaintiffs in error, to recover eight hundred acres of land in Wilkinson County, in the State of Mississippi.

. This cause came up from the Circuit Court of' the United States for Delaware, oil a certificate of division in opinion between the .judges thereof. It involved the construction of the ninth and eleventh sections of the charter granted by Maryland, the provisions of which are similar to those of the charter granted by Delaware. “ Sec. 9.

This was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Georgia. It was the case of a bill filed upon the equity side of that court by William Neves, a citizen of Alabama, and James C. Neves, a citizen of Mississippi, against Scott and Rowell, citizens of Georgia. ■ The facts were these.

Held: that,, “as it was clearly a fraud, and a man cannot recover the price of goods' sold under a fraud, a new trial should be granted.” Any defence which in England'may be made in assumpsit for the price of the goods sold may be made in Alabama, under her statute, in a suit on a sealed bill, for the purchase-money.

Held: on an application for a writ of error, to review the judgment, that we possessed no power over. it without further legislation by Congress, for the reason that the Territorial court in which the judgment was rendered no longer existed; and that the State court to which it had been transferred could exercise no judicial power over it, as the law of the State directing the transfer of the record could not make it a…

This was an action of ejectment brought by John Mason, in his lifetime, to recover possession • of some lots in- the city of Washington held under a tax title. The case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the County of Washington and District of Columbia, In the trial of the cause in the Circuit Court, the following statement of tacts was agreed upon, subject to the opinion of the court upon it.

■ This c.ase was brought up, from the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio, within and for the County of Hamilton, by a writ of error issued under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act. The case arose in this way. Baldwin was a clerk in the Commercial Bank of Cincinnati. In 1844, the trustees of the bank brought an action of assumpsit against him for $ 10,000.

This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for Louisiana. Ann Brabston was a citizen of Mississippi, and Gibson of Louisiana. The facts in the case were .somewhat complicated.

This case was brought up from the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana, by a writ of error issued under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act.

■ This was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi. It arose from a former case in this court, McNutt v. Bland et al., reported in 2 Howard, 9. The facts were these. On the 6th of November, 1837, Richard J. Bland was elected sheriff of the County of Claiborne, in the State of Mississippi, for the term of two years, prescribed in the constitution of that State.

<p>The preemption act of May 29th, 1830, conferred certain rights upon settlers npon the public lands, upon proof of settlement or improvement being made to.the satisfaction of the register and receiver, agreeably to the rules prescribed by the Commissioner of the General Xand Office.</p> <p>The commissioner directed-the proof to be taken before the register •and receiver, and afterwards directed them to file the proof where it should establish to théir entire satisfaction the rights of the parties.</p> <p>"Where the proof was taken in presence of the-register only, but both officers decided • in favor of the claim, and the money paid by the claimant was received by the commissioner, this was sufficient. The commissioner had power to make the regulation, and power also to dispense with it.</p> <p>This proof being filed, there was no necessity of reopening the case when the public surveys were returned.</p> <p>The circumstance that the register would not afterwards permit the claimant to enter the section, did not invalidate the claim.</p> <p>The preémptioner had no right to go beyond the fractional section upon which his improvements were, in order to make up the one hundred and sixty acres to which settlers generally were entitled.</p> <p>No selection of lands under a subsequent act of Congress could impair the right of a presmptioner, thus acquired.</p>

Held: it is presumed, under his deed; but the holders are not parties to this suit', and it may be decided without affecting their interests. When the record of a judgment is brought before the court collaterally or otherwise, it is always proper to inquire whether the court rendering the judgment had jurisdiction.

This case came up from the Circuit Court of the United States for Michigan, upon a certificate of division in opinion between tbs judges thereof. It was before the court, and reported in 5 Howard, 208, and sent back because the point was not distinctly certified.

This was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern' District of Mississippi. It was an appeal from a decree by the equity side of the court, granting a perpetual injunction upon the appellants, who were plaintiffs in an ejectment suit then pending on the law side of the court.

This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana. Reab was a citizen of Connecticut, and Barrow of Louisiana. The facts in the case appeared by the record to be these.

This case came up from the Circuit Court of the United States for Maine, upon a certificate of division in opinion between the judges thereof. It-was an action of debt for the penalty of five hundred dollars imposed by the statute (2 Stat. at Large, 203) which will be presently quoted, brought in the Circuit Court for Maine, in .the name of Mr. Harrison, United States Consul at Kingston, in the island of Jamaica, against George C. Vose, master of the-brig Openango.

This case came up from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi, upon a certificate of division in opinion between the judges thereof. It was a bill filed on the equity side of the court, by Hill and the other complainants, against the United States, the Mississippi and Alabama Railroad Company, William M. Gwin, and William H. Shelton, to enjoin a judgment obtained against the complainants by the United States.

This was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland. A. decree pro forma was entered, under the agreement of the parties, dismissing a bill filed by Tayloe against the insurance company under the following circumstances. The office of the insurance company was at Baltimore, but there was an agent at Fredericksburg, Virginia, who was John Minor.

This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the District Court of-the United States for the Middle District of • Alabama. Townsend was a citizen of the State of Mississippi, and Jemison of Alabama. In September, 1844, Jemison brought a suit, in the District Court of the United States for the Middle District of Alabama, against Townsend, who was in Alabama.

Held: and cede and transfer the whole to the purchaser, who his right shall have, that as his own he may sell or transfer it .at his pleasured -without any person opposing his determination ; and that it may thus be evident, at all times, and for the time being, I make. him another sale of the same tract, and sign the present for his security, in the afore town of Mobile, the 30th day of the month of June, 1802.

Held: to be conclusive of the'fact. “ The right of these officers to determine this question is attempted to be derived from the various acts of Congress giving them power to determine between conflicting and interfering claims, and also to direct the manner of locating and surveying the lands the title to which had been confirmed.

This case was brought up from the Supreme Court of Alabama, by a writ of error issued under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act. It involved the same principle decided by this court in the case of Pollard v. Hagan, reported in 3 Howard, 212. It is not necessary, therefore, to set forth the facts and title any further than they are stated in the bill of exceptions which was taken to the opinion of the Circuit Court for Mobile County.

This case came up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania. It was an action of ejectment brought in the Circuit Court by Isaac Atkinson, a citizen of Ohio, to recover a tract of land in Derry township, Westmoreland County and State of Pennsylvania. The whole case was stated in the bill of exceptions, which it is only necessary to recite.

These two cases were merely branches of a single case which was tried in the Circuit Court of- the United States for the District of Columbia, holden in and for the County of Washington. The suit was instituted by the United States against Obadiah B. Brown, upon an account, two items only of which were disputed.' Upon one of these items the instruction of the court to the.jury was unfavorable to Brown, and he took a bill of exceptions to it.

This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Illinois. It was an action of debt, brought by the United. States in the Circuit Court, on ,an official bond against John S. Roberts, who had been postmaster at Springfield, Illinois, and Jam'es F. Reed and James Adams, his sureties. The facts in the case were these.

This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Mississippi. The facts were these.

Held: ‘ that the liability of lands to execution in the courts of the United States does not arise from any act of Congress expressly making them sp liable, but from the operation of the process acts of 1789 and 1792 ; the State law upon the •subject, being thereby adopted, should be considered as also adopting the effect and operation of the judgment as a lien.

This, case came up from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland, upon a certificate of division in opinion between the judges thereof. It was a suit brought by Lambert and McKenzie, carrying on business as partners in Alexandria, Virginia; against William Ghiselin, the indorser of the following bill of exchange. [Stamp 75 cents.] April 21, 1846.

This case came up from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern-District of hew York, upon a certificate of division in opinion between the judges thereof. -~.

This case was brought up, by a writ of error, from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Florida. The facts in the case are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court.

<p>In error to the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Florida.</p>

Held: in the case of Forsyth v. The United' States, just decided, that a writ of error lies to the judgments in the peculiar class of cases described and provided for in the eighth section of the act of Congress passed 22d February, 1847, already referred to, without reference to the amount in controversy, and, as this case falls within that class, it follows that the court has jurisdiction to revise the judgment, and…

This was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, in and for the County of Washington, sitting as a court of equity.. The facts were these.

This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the District Court ot the United States for the Northern District of Mississippi. The order of the ciourt explains the ground of its dismissal, upon, the motion of Mr. Coxe.

Held: in possession in order to distress and harass the enemy. While it was occupied by our troops, they were in an enemy’s country, and not in their own; the inhabitants were still foreigners and enemies, and owed to the United States nothing more than *616 the submission and obedience, sometimes called temporary allegiance, which is due from a conquered enemy, when he surrenders to a force which he is unable to resist.

This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland. , It was an action of assurr>psit brought by F. W. Bruñe & Sons against William H. Marriott, the collector of the port of Baltimore, to recover hack certain duties upon importations of sugar and molasses, which, it was alleged, had- been illegally charged, and paid under protest.

This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court, of the United States for the Southern District of New York. It involved the same question as the preceding case of Marriott v. Bruñe, viz. whether, in calculating the duties upon an importation of sugar, allowance should be made for leakage and drainage, with the additional fact in evidence, that the purchaser abroad takes into consideration the probable loss íe fixing the price to be paid.

This case was transferred to this court by an ordet of Mr. Justice Grier, one of the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, under the following circumstances.

<p>APPENDIX.</p> <p>Br some untoward accident, the following dissentient opinions were omitted in the reports of the cases to which they apply, and are therefore published in an Appendix.</p> <p>(p. 213.)</p>

Held: that the *669 grant was made by the act directly, and gave date to the title, and of necessity overreached all intervening claims for the land selected. This case is far stronger than that. Here the act of 1830, was made part of- the act of July 14, 1832 ; they stood ás one act, and took date on the 14th of July.