Volume 53 — United States Reports

This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Supreme Court for the Second Judicial District of the State of Iowa. Proceedings were commenced when Iowa was a Territory, but in the progress of the cause she was admitted as a State. The pleadings set forth the facts of the case.

This cause was brought up from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, on a certificate of division' in opinion between the judges thereof. It was an action brought up by the plaintiffs against the Collector of New York for the return of certain duties, paid under-protest, and charged to have been illegally exacted upon the importation of glass tumblers.

A motion was made by Mr. Woodbury to docket and dismiss this case under the 43d rule of this court. The .case purported to be an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. The certificate of the clerk of the Circuit Court is set.forth in the order passed by this court, and to be found at the end of this report. It is, therefore, unnecessary to repeat it.

This was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Arkansas, sitting as a court-of equity. On the 12th of April, 1814,. Congress passed an act, (3 Stat. at Large, p. 122, § 5,) giving a right of preemption to settlers upon certain portions óf the, public lands, under certain conditions, one of which was, that the Indian title should have been extinguished.

This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United Staieá for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The plaintiffs, Turner & Renshaw, sued the defendant, Parks, in the Circuit Court of the-United States for the Eastern District, at New Orleans, to recover $5969.22, due by promissory note executed by Parks to the plaintiffs.

<p>This was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for. the Southern District of Alabama. It was a petition presented under the act of 1824, relating to land titles in' Misscrari, as revived and made applicable by the act of 1844, to that part of the State of Alabama, below the thirty-first degree of north latitude.</p> <p>The petition sets forth: “ That your petitioners are the only heirs of the Chevalier Montault de Monterault, who, many years since, departed this life intestate, in the then province, now State, of Louisiana. Your petitioners further allege; that heretofore, to wit, on the third day of January, in the year seventeen hundred and sixty-three, the said Chevalier Montault de Monterault petitioned the then governor of the Colony of Louisiana for the grant of a tract of land lying south of the thirty-first degree of north latitude, and between the rivers Mississippi and Perdido, and within the State of Alabama, bounded by the rivers La Batture, now known as bayou Batee, the Gulf of Mexico, and Fowl River, extending into the interior to the sources of those rivers, and especially that branch of Fowl River, known as the Elwer or Leslay, which, approaching each other, form a tract of land or cul-de-sac.</p> <p>“Your petitioners further allege that, heretofore, to wit, on the eleventh day of March, in the year seventeen hundred and sixty-three, Louis de Kerlerac, then governor of the Colony of Louisiana, and Dennis Nicholas Faucault, performing the functions .of commissary ordonnateur of said province, holding their appointments under the King of France, executed and delivered to the said Chevalier Montault de Monterault, a grant to said tract of land, by virtue of which he possessed it for many years, and used it for the purpose of cultivation, raising horses and cattle, and making tar; and the said Montault de Monterault was, at the time of making said grant, a resident of Louisiana; and said grant is protected by the treaty between the United States and France for the cession of Louisiana. Your petitioners allege that he never aliened the said land, that it belonged to him at the time of his death, and-that it has descended to your petitioners as his legal heirs, and that it contains about forty-five thousand superficial acres.</p> <p>“ Your petitioners allege, that their claim aforesaid has not been submitted to the examination of any of the tribunals which .have been constituted by Jaw for the adjustment of land-titles, nor reported on by such tribunal. Wherefore, your petitioners pray that the validity of their claim aforesaid may be inquired into and decided by the said court; and reserving the right of amending their petition, and of making other persons parties to this proceeding if necessary, they pray that a copy- of this their petition be served on the District Attorney of tne United States for the Southern District of Alabama/ And they further pray, that, after proper proceedings, it may be decreed by this court that the title held by your petitioners to the above-described tract of land is good as against the United States and all persons claiming under them, and that they may be permitted to locate, elsewhere a quantity of land equal to-what the government, of the United States may have sold or granted within the limits of the grant aforesaid to the Chevalier Montault de Monterault; and your petitioners pray for other and further relief, such as the nature of their case may require.”</p> <p>To this petition the District Attorney filed a general demurrer.</p> <p>The District Judge sustained the demurrer, and the petitioners ' brought the case up to this court.</p>

This was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana, sitting as a court of equity. The facts in the case are set forth in the opinion of the court, to which the reader is referred.

" This case was brought up from the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri by a writ of error, issued under the 25th section of the Judiciary- Act. It was an ejectment brought-by the plaintiffs in error, in the Circuit Court of Cole County, (State Court of Missouri,) to recover lot No. 455, as known and described upon the plat of the city of Jefferson, lying and being at a corner formed by the intersection of Washington and High Streets.

This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the, United States for the Southern District of Mississippi. The action was originally brought by Rowan & Harris upon the following note. Rowan having died during, the suit, it was prosecuted by, Harris, the surviving jpartner. It will be'perceived that the action was by the indorsees against the indorser. ■ Dollars 8,671.33§.

<p>This case was brought up. by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District -of New York.</p> <p>It was an action of debt on.statute, commenced in the District Court of Northern New .York, founded on the tenth section of the act of 3d March, 1845: “ An act to reduce the rates of postage; to limit the use, and correct the abuse, of the franking privilege; and for the prevention of frauds on the revenue of the Post-Office Department.”</p> <p>The section is as follows: “ That it shall not be lawful for any stage-coach, railroad ear, steamboat, packet-boat, or other vehicle or vessel, nor any of the owners, manager^, servants, or crews of either, which regularly performs trips at stated periods on a post-route, or between two or more cities^ towns, or other places, from one to the other of which the United States mail is regularly conveyed under the authority of the Post-Office Department, to transport or convey, otherwise than in the mail, any letter or letters, packet or packages of letters, or other mailable matter whatsoever, except such as may have relation to some part of the cargo of such steamboat, packet-boat, or other vessel, or to some article at the same time conveyed by the same stage-coach, railroad car, or other vehicle; and excepting also newspapers, pamphlets, magazines, and periodicals; and for every such offence, the owner or owners of the stage-coach, railroad car, steamboat, packet-boat, or other vehicle- or vessel, shall forfeit and pay the sum of one hundred dollars; and the driver, captain, conductor, or person having charge of any such stage-coach, railroad car, steamboat, packet-boat, or other vehicle or vessel at the time of the commission of any such offence, and who shall not at that time be the owner thereof, in whole or in part, shall in like manner forfeit and pay, in every such case of offence, the sum of fifty dollars.” 5 Stat. at Large, 736.</p> <p>What constitutes mailable matter, is defined in the fifteenth section.' Ib. 737.</p> <p>The declaration contains ten counts, and in substance, they all and each of them charge, that Bromley, the defendant, was the captain of the packet-boat Empire, which regularly performed trips, at stated periods,, between two places, from one to the other of which places the United States mail was regularly conveyed, under the authority of the Post-Office Department, to wit, between Albion and Rochester; and that the said packet-boat, and the said defendant so being such captain, and the managers, servants, and crews of the said packet-boat, did, while the said defendant was such captain thereof, and while the said packet-boat did regularly perform trips, at stated periods, between the said places, the said United States mail being regularly conveyed, under the authority of the Post-Office Department, from one to the other of the said places, transport and convey, otherwise than in the mail, divers letters, packets, and packages of letters, to wit, ten letters, ten packets, arid ten packages of letters, then and there being mailable matter, other than newspapers, &c.; and which said letters, packets, and packages of letters, did not, nor did any or either of .them, have relation to any part of the cargo of the said packet-boat, from one to the other of the said places, from one to the other of which said places the United States mail was then and there regularly conveyed as aforesaid, under the authority of the Post-Office Department, contrary to - the intent of the act;. whereby the defendant did then and there forfeit, and became liable to pay the plaintiffs the sum of fifty dollars; by means whereof an action hath accrued to the plaintiffs to demand and have of and from the defendant the sum of fifty dollars.</p> <p>. To this declaration the defendant pleaded nil debet, to which the plaintiffs joined issue.</p> <p>The cause coming on to be tried, the plaintiffs offered certain evidence set forth in the bill of exceptions, as follows :</p> <p>Wallace Sherman, to whom it was objected on behalf of the defendant, that he was informer in the case, but the court overruled the objection.</p> <p>The said witness was therefore examined in chief by the said United States Attorney, and testified, that he was clerk-in the post-office at Albion, from about the middle of August, 1846, during all which dime the mail was regularly carried under the authority of the Post-Office. Department, between Albion and Rochester* New York, daily. H. I. Sickles was postmaster at Albion; that he had seen the defendant, and knew him by sight; that he believed he was captain of the packet-boat Empire, on the Erie Canal, in 1845, and part of 1846 5 that the packet-boat Empire, during the season of navigation, performed regular trips between Rochester and Buffalo; that Albion was -.on the canal between Rochester and Buffalo; that he had seen Kelsey, the steward of the boat; that he was steward of the boat while the defendant was captain ; that he saw a letter or letters given to Kelsey in 1846, he thought in May ; that it was while the defendant was captain, and while the boat was at Albion; Kelsey was the steward of the boat, which was going from Buffalo to Rochester; that he thought two letters were given to him, one by Bráinard and one by Parmlee; that he did not know as any thing else was given to the steward ; that he, the witness, was not far off; that he did not know whether both the letters were given to the steward at the same instant of time.</p> <p>' On cross-examination by the counsel for the defendant, this witness testified that this was between 10 and 11 o’clock at night; the boat did not stop at Albion over fifteen minutes; that on the occasion spoken of he and one White got on the boat; that he had seen the defendant on the boat Empire since that time ; that he did 'not abandon the boat very early in 1846; that after the defendant quit, Kelsey run the boat as captain; that, he, the witness, was not acquainted with Brainard, who was a tobacco peddler; Parmlee attended the fiar at the Mansion House in Albion; the papers handed to the steward were folded in the shape and size of letters ; he, the witness, did not know whether they were sealed or j|not; Kelsey got- on the boat after he took the letters; they did not contain over one sheet of paper each.</p> <p>On a reexamination by the said United States Attorney, the Witness testified, .that he saw the report of the case by the postmaster to the United States Attorney. It is shown to and identified by the witness, who stated the report to be dated May 7, 1846. .</p> <p>William V. White was then called as a witness for the said United States, and testified that he resided at Brockport, and was at Albion in the spring of 1846, he thought in May, and stayed at Albion ‘from dark until 10 or 11 o’clock the same night; and then went from Albion to Rochester in the packet-boat Empire, of which the defendant was the captain.</p> <p>That the last witness, Sherman, came down to the wharf to see the witness off. That he, the witness, did not. see any thing handed to the steward, or any hand on the boat. That he arrived at Rochester about 7 o’clock the next morning, and saw Kelsey, the steward, have something of paper, which he handed to a.boy. . That he did not see the size of t-heL.paper, or whether sealed or open. That he did riot see from what part of his person the steward took the paper. That the boy to whom the paper was delivered belonged to the boat; he thought there was no more than one paper, and that he should think they were folded. That he did not notice any writing on the papers. That this was almost half an hour after the boat arrived at Rochester. The said United States Attorney thereupon asked the said witness whether the said steward, when he gave the said papers to the boy, gave any directions to the boy in respect to said papers. And the said counsel for the said defendant did then and there object, and insist that the said question was improper, and that the said witness ought not to answer the same. And the said court did thereupon then and there decide, that the said question was incompetent, and that the same should not be answered by the witness; to which opinion and. decision the said United States Attorney did then and there except.</p> <p>On cross-examination, the said witness testified that he was with Sherman most of the time after nine o’clock of the evening of - the transaction spoken of, until the packet-boat left Albion. That it was between the 1st and 15th of May, 1846. That the defendant was on the boat as captain that night.</p> <p>James Brainard was then called and sworn as a witness on behalf of the United States, and testified that in May, 1846, he was at work peddling tobacco for Mr. Palmer; that he was at Albion every two weeks, and thought he was there in- May; that he was there the forepart of the week, but did not recollect the time of the month; that he recollected offering Kelsey a letter at Albion to carry to Mr. Palmer, his employer, at Rochester, and Kelsey would not carry it, and said he was not permitted to carry letters. That this was in front of the hotel at Albion, at 10 or 11 o’clock at night; that he (the witness) kept the letter, and wrote an order on his employer for some tobacco, and gave it to Kelsey to carry; that he wrote it op a half sheet of paper, and wrote, it half oyer and tore off the residue. That he folded it over the width of the sheet, and then once at right angles with the first fold, and directed it on the outside to Mr. Palmer, at Rochester. That the order to Mr. Palmer was a request to send some-tobacco to him (the witness) at Albion, by the boat Empire, or by the, (irst boat; and the witness thinks the request was to send it by the first boat; and this was the substance of the paper. That he did not give, the steward any thing for carrying the- letter. That he received the tobacco the next day. He found it at the hotel at Albion, when he came back from Berne Centre..</p> <p>On cross-examination, this witness testified, that he supposed, when he wrote, that the Empire would be the first boat out of Rochester, after -the receipt of the order by Palmer. That he told Palmer to send the tobacco bv the first boat; that he paid nothing for bringing the tobacco.</p> <p>James H. Palmer was then called and sworn, as a witness on behalf of the United States, and testified that he was the person of that name referred to in the testimony of the last witness, and had charge of the business of the firm at Rochester, for whom Brainard was peddling tobacco in May, 1846. That he frequently received orders from Brainard by mail and otherwise ; that the orders were all destroyed; that he never sent tobacco to peddlers except upon orders, unless they requested it before they left Rochester.</p> <p>On cross-examination, he testified that he recollected sending tobacco by the defendant’s boat, in May, 1846, to Brainard.</p> <p>William Parmlee was then sworn, and called as a witness on behalf of the United States, and testified that, in May, 1846, he attended bar for Mr. Hopkins, at Albion. That he did not recollect handing any paper or letter to Kelsey, to be carried by him, or for any other purpose; that he had offered letters to Kelsey to carry, and he refused to carry them; that he recollected seeing Brainard giving a note to Kelsey, written on two thirds of a sheet of foolscap paper, and folded in about the size of an ordinary letter, to be carried to Rochester.</p> <p>On cross-examination, the witness testified that the. boat Empire brought the tobacco from Rochester for Brainard; and he (the witness) paid the steward (Kelsey) half a dollar for bringing it, which Brainard afterwards repaid him.</p> <p>Said Kelsey was then calléd as a witness for the said United States, and testified that in May, 1846, he was steward of the Empire. The defendant was captain of the said boat; that he recollected the circumstances spoken of by Brainard and Sherman ; that Brainard came with a letter, and he (the witness) refused to take it; and that he soon afterwards brought the order spokén of, which he (the witness) took, and, when he arrived at Rochester, sent to Mr. Palmer, and received the tobacco and carried it to Albion, for which he received a half dollar, which was a perquisite of his own.</p> <p>The said United States Attorney thereupon rested the said cause, and the counsel for the defendant did then and there ask •the said judge to direct the said jury that the said evidence did not establish a cause of action against the said defendant; and that the said defendant, upon the said evidence, was entitled to a verdict; and the said judge did thereupon, then and there declare and decide, that the said evidence, so as aforesaid given, did not establish a cause of action against the said defendant; and that the said paper, carried and conveyed by the steward of the said boat, from Albion to .Rochester, as aforesaid described by the witnesses, was not a letter or mailable matter within the meaning of tne act of Congress, but was a paper having a differ ént and distinct character of its own, and could be lawfully carried by the said steward of the packet-boat aforesaid; and did then and there, for the reason aforesaid, direct the said jury, to find’ a verdict for the said defendant. To which said opinion and decision the said United States Attorney did then and there except; and the said jury did thereupon, in pursuance of the said opinion and decision, without leaving the box, find a verdict for the defendant.</p> <p>The cause was afterwards removed by writ of error into the Circuit Court, when the judgment of the District Court was affirmed.</p> <p>The United States then sued out writ of error and brought the case up to this court.</p>

This case was brought up from the Supreme Court of Indiana, by a writ of error issued under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act. It originally stood in the name of Wilson Lagow, the ancestor of the present defendants in error. The point involved was the construction of the act of Congress, passed on the 1st May, 1820, (3 Stat. at Large, 568,) which forbids land from being-purchased on account of the United States except under a law authorizing such purchase.

Held: that no interest or right could be claimed under them through the contract of 1816, but that the right of Goodwin to the fund passed by his assignment in 1829 to the defendants.

This case was also, like the preceding one, brought up from the Court of Appeals of Maryland, ,bv a writ of error issued under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act. The circumstances of the two cases were the same. In both, Winchester was the trustee who sold, the share to Oliver, and the same act of Assembly,applied to both. The judgment and reasons of the Court of Appeals covered both cases, and they were argued in this court together by the same counsel.

This was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The leading facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the comb, to which the reader is referred. Upon the hearing in the Circuit Court, the bill was dismissed, and Dorsey appealed to this comb.

<p>This was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kentucky, sitting as a court of equity.</p> <p>It was a bill filed by Russell, the appellant, to redeem what he called a mortgage, and the question in the case was whether it was a mortgage or conditional sale. The facts are set forth in the opinion of the court. Upon the trial, the Circuit Court dismissed the bill, and Russell appealed to this court.</p>

<p>The surety for the appellants from a decree in admiralty gave bond to pay all costs and damages which might be adjudged by this court.</p> <p>This court having affirmed the decree of the Circuit Court with costs and six per cent. • damages, judgment was entered upon the receipt of the mandate by the Circuit Court, for the amount of the original judgment together with the amount of costs and damages calculated up to that day; and execution was awarded.</p> <p>Under this execution, the vessel, which had been attached under the libel, was sold for less than this aggregate amount.</p> <p>The surety is not entitled to have a relative proportion of the proceeds of sale applied to the reduction of his bond, but is responsible upon it to the entire amount.</p> <p>By the 26th section of the Judiciary Act, the courts have power to assess damages upon bonds, &c., and to render judgment for so much as is due according to. equity, in cases of default or confession or demurrer. This section does not apply .to a case heard on agreed facts.</p> <p>But then when the case heard on agreed facts was the case of an appeal-bond, it was proper for the court to give judgment for the penalty of the bond (being less than the judgment under the mandate) and allow interest'from the date of the institution of the suit, although the amount to be paid in this way would exceed the penalty of the bond.</p>

<p>In order to bring a case within the reviewing po-vyer of this court, as prescribed by the-25th Section of the Judiciary Act, it is necessary that the record should show that the point, giving jurisdiction to this court, was raised and decided in the State court.</p> <p>The preceding decisions upon this subject referred to.</p> <p>Hence, where it appears from, the record that the decision of the State court turned upon the construction and not th'e validity of a State law, and that the question of its validity was not raised, this court has no jurisdiction.</p>

This case was brought up, by writ of errpr, from the Circuit Court of tbs United States, for the Eastern District of Louisiana. It was aq action brought by the defendant in error upon an injunction-bond, and was a consequence of the case of Bein et al. v. Heath, reported in 6 Howard, 228. A brief recital of the circumstances may be necessary.

<p>This was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Rhode Island, sitting as a court of equity.</p> <p>The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court, to which the reader is referred.</p>

This was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana, sitting as a court of equity. • It came up upon a demurrer to a bill filed by Andrew Erwin, which demurrer was sustained by the court, and the bill dismissed with costs. - The facts set forth in the bill, arranged in chronological order, were as follows:— In the year 1839, James M. Wall, a citizen of the State of Mississippi, appears to have been in possession of two plantations in…

This was an appeal from the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Held: as to the first objection, that, *244 as it was conceded on both sides that the previous notes had been paid, the presumption of law was, they had Men given up by the holder at the time of payment, as the party was not bound as a general rule to make the payment, without receiving the note as his voucher; and, that, if the fact was otherwise, the burden lay upon the defendants to show it.

This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit' Court' of the United States for the Eastern District of -Louisiana.' The facts are set forth in the opinion of the court.

This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana. It was a suit brought by Brown, a -citizen of Mississippi, against Bond, as the administrator of Mary Ann Cade, upon a bond with a collateral condition, given by one Witherspoon, for which Mary Ann Cade was responsible. The petition set out the bond and the breaches.

This was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Alabama. • There were two cases between the same parties, depending upon the same prin-. ciples, and only differing as to the property mortgaged. The notice of one will suffice for both. The plaintiffs in error were the trustees of the Bank of the United States, being the assignees of Cowperthwaite, Dunlap, and Cope, the oilginal trustees.

Held: if the damage has proceeded from an intrinsic principle of decay naturally inherent in the commodity itself, whether active in every situation, or only in the confinement and closeness of the ship, the merchant must bear the- loss as well as pay the freight; as the master and owners are in no fault, nor does their contract contain any insurance or warranty against such an event. 12 East, 381; 4 Campb. 119; 6 Taunt.…

This cast was brought up from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, by a writ of error, issued under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act.

This case was brought up from the Court of Appeals of Maryland, by a writ of error issued under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act.

Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 53 U.S. (12 How.) 299 (1852), was a US Supreme Court case that held that a Pennsylvania law requiring all ships entering or leaving Philadelphia to hire a local pilot did not violate the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. Those who did not comply with the law had been required to pay a fee.

This was an appeal from the District Court of the United ■ States for the District of Texas. The facts are set forth in- the opinion of the court, to which the reader is referred.

<p>This was an appeal from the District Court of the Uniied States for the District of Texas.</p> <p>Although the complainants were not the same as in the preceding case of the Union Bank of Louisiana v. Stafford and Wife, yet the respondents were the same and the subject-matter was a breach of the same transaction. The only difference is stated fully in the opinion of the court; and by agreement of parties the two cases were consolidated in the court below and to be argued together.</p>

These two cases were included in the same judgment of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of South Carolina, and were argued together in this court, upon an appeal from that judgment. Originally, ten several libels were filed by the owners or consignees of goods shipped on bpard the Martha at Liverpool, bound to Charleston.

This case carpe up from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia, upon a certificate of division in opinion between the judges thereof. The facts are all stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>Where slaves are in the possession of a mortgagee, who renders an account of the profits of their labor and the expenses which he has incurred on their behalf, he must be held bound to exercise a reasonable diligence in keeping them engaged in useful employments.</p> <p>It is not a sufficient excuse for allowing them to remain idle, to say that he managed them as they had been managed by their former master, the mortgagor.</p> <p>If the mortgagee-is charged with their hire from a period commencing three months after the death of the mortgagor, he is not charged too much.</p> <p>Where the account of the master chargócl the mortgagee with a certain sum for their hire, exclusive of clothing, medical treatment, or other expenses, it was a correct mode of stating the account.</p>

Held: and an affidavit of its publication, indorsed “ Filed 7th November, 1827,” Hoover, clerk.) To the production of this paper in evidence, the defendant objected. The defendant then offered in evidence a confirmatory deed, signed by Sargeant’s co-obligors in the bond, and by Johnson as representing Sargeant.

A motion was made for a mandamus in this case, to compel the district judge to set aside an order of supersedeas and to. order the clerk to issue an execution. The circumstances were these: — At the fall term, 1849, of the District Court of the United States for the Middle District of Alabama, Tuthill obtained a judgment against Saltmarsh in a common-law case.

This case was brought up by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States, for the District of Columbia, holden in and for the county of Washington. It was the same case which is reported in 7 Howard, 89. It was then Wilkes v. Dinsman, and this court, having reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court, sent it down to be tried' again.

Held: that if a person taken on a capias ad satisfaciendum died in execution, the plaintiff had no further remedy, because he had determined the choice by this kind of execution, which, affecting a man’s liberty, is esteemed the highest and most rigid in the law, and for this aré cited Foster v. Jackson, Hob. 52; Williams v. Critteris Cro.

This case was brought up from the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana for the Eastern District, by a writ of error issued under the-25th section of the Judiciary Act. The plaintiffs in error, on the 19th June, 1848, filed their petition in the Third District Court of New Orleans, stating them- . selves to be residents of Mississippi, and the only heirs and representatives of John. Linton, deceased, and as such in possession of his property.

This was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for Louisiana. It was a land case .arising under the act of 1824, as revived by the act of 1844. On the 8th of March, 1848, Porche filed his petition in the District Court, claiming a confirmation of an order of survey-made by Governor Miro in 1788. It is not necessary to state the title, as the case went off on a question of jurisdiction.

This was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The case arose under the acts of 1824 -and 1844, and was decided by the District Court in favor of the petitioner. The circumstances are stated in the opinion of the court.

This was an appeal from the District Court of the United States .for the Eastern District of Louisiana, being a land case arising under the acts of 1824 and 1844.

Held: which has-been sold or otherwise disposed of by the United States, the petitioners shall be, and they are hereby authorized to enter in any land-office of the United States in the State of Louisiana, a like quantity of public land elsewhere, in; conformity with the provision of the 11th section of the act of- Congress, approved on the 26th of May, 1824.” This decision of the district judge is palpably inconsistent…

This was an appeal from the .Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York. It was a libel filed by Fitzhugh, .Littlejohn, and Peck.

<p>This wa s an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for .he Eastern District of Louisiana.</p> <p>The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court. The cargo of flatboat No. 2 consisted of 3,136 sacks of corn, 31 barrels and one kég’of lard, 315 sacks of oats, of which there were insured,</p> <p>1,643 sacks of corn (4,125 bush, at 75c.) . . $3,093 00</p> <p>158 sacks pats (353 bush, at 40c.) .... 141 20</p> <p>17 barrel's of lard . . . ....... 333 63</p> <p>$3,567 83</p> <p>which was paid by the insurance company, with a small deduction. When paid, there was an argument .between the insurance company and John C. Bull & Co., that the latter would include the insurance company in the libel.</p> <p>The libel was filed by John C. Bull, William J. M’Clare, and Thomas S. Foreman, trading under the firm of John C. Bull & Co., in the District Court of the United States. They were the owners of the boat and of the corn, and filed the libel for the use of the insurance company. A variety of testimony was taken, the important parts of which are stated in the opinion of the court.</p> <p>The District Court gave judgment in favor of the libellants, in the sum of $3,753.45.</p> <p>The defendants appealed to the Circuit Court.</p> <p>The Circuit- Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court, and the defendants'appealed to this court.</p>

Mr. Chief Justice' Taney and Mr. Justice McLean did not sit in this cause. Thjs was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The bill was originally filed in the Circuit Court by William W. Whitney and Myra Clark Whitney (now Myra Clark Gaines) in 1836. From 1834 to 1836 • they had been proceeding in the probate court of Louisiana, until in 1836 their petition was dismissed.