Volume 58 — United States Reports

This case was brought up from the supreme court of the State of Louisiana, by a writ of error, issued under the 25th section of the judiciary act. Mr. Dunbar moved the court to allow him to. strike out his • appearance for the State of Louisiana; and further moved the court to dismiss, the case, on the ground that no process had .been issued against, or served on, the chief executive magistrate and attorney-general of the State of Louisiana, under the 10th rule of this court.

This was an appeal from the district court of the United States for the northern district of Iowa. Mr. Platt Smith moved to dismiss the appeal for want -oi jurisdiction, as the amount of none of the several decrees was for $2,000, and referred to the case of Oliver et al. v. Alexander et al. 6 Peters, 143.

Held: “ in an action by the payee against the acceptor, it is no defence that the bill was accepted without consideration, and that fact known to the payee.” See also United States v. Bank of Metropolis, 15 Pet. 377 ; 7 Johns. Rep. 361 ; 7 Smedes and Marsh, 244; Byles on Bills, 150; 2 Wheat. 385 ; Civil Code, 2256; D’Aquir v. Barbour, 4 La Annual R. 441; Henderson v. Stone, 1 N. S. 641. Second point.

This was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York. It was a libel filed in the district court, for furnishing articles for the steam-ship Ohio. A motion was made by Mr. Cutting, and opposed by Mr. Bradley, with whom was Mr. Benedict, to dismiss the appeal, for the want of jurisdiction. The points made were the same as those in the succeding case, and there was an affidavit of value made by Mr. Benedict.

This was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York. A libel was filed in the district court, by Olney, alleging the shipment and non-delivery of a box of merchandise, in consequence of which he was entitled to recover the damages by him sustained, which amounted to the sum of eighteen hundred dollars and upwards. The district court dismissed the libel, and the circuit court affirmed the decree.

Held: then it must follow, that after the entries were generally made in this loose form, throughout the coast of the Mississippi River, in Louisiana, that the courts of justice might have decreed partitions among front proprietors, in all instances, and have had the lands surveyed by judicial authority, and superseded the action of the United States altogether, as required by the act of 1811.

Held: that several parties engaged in carrying over different portions of the same line of conveyance, each sharing in the profits of the whole route, and of course of each section of it, are all responsible for the faithful discharge of their duty, and liable to respond in’ damages for any injury which results from the negligence or unskilfulness of any of the proprietors and servants.” 11 Wend. 571 ; 18 Ib. 175; 19 Ib.…

This was an appeal from the district corut of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana. In Juné, 1846, Coxe and thirteen others filed a petition in the district corut, under the acts of Congress passed in 1824 and 1844, the purport of which acts has been so often explained in the preceding volumes of these reports, that it is unnecessary now to recapitulate it.

This was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Missouri. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

This was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky, sitting as a court of equity. It was a bill filed by Wicldiffe, under a statute of Kentucky, to quiet the. title to sundry tracts of land of which the complainant was in possession,.and to which he alleged that he had the legal title.

This was an appeal from the disfriet court of the United States for the northern district of California. The libel was filed in the district court, held by Mr. Ogden Hoiftnan, Jr., who decreed that the libeHant, Tyson, had a lien upon the cargo of coal, for the sum of twelve thousand dollars. The libellant was part owner, and agent, and ship’s husband, of the ship Orphan, and resided in New York.

This was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts, sitting as a court of equity. It was a bill filed by the Troy Iron and Nail Factory, a manufacturing corporation established in the State of New York, to restrain the Odiornés from infringing certain letters-patent granted to Henry Burden, on the 2d of September, 1840, and by him assigned to the complainant.

Held: on the trial of that case, that the patent being merely for the combination of machinery, it could neither be supported nor *83 assailed by proof of the novelty, or want of novelty, of the parts.

Held: in the case of Wood against the United States, 16 Pet. 342 , which was an information founded upon this section, that it was then in force, and the property there seized was condemned under it. The goods in that case had been entered at the custom-house in 1839 and 1840. The duty' act of 1842, which has since been passed, is supposed to operate a •repeal of the section, by implication.

This ease was brought up, by writ of error, from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisianá. It was similar, in its circumstances, to the case of the United States v. Sixty-seven Packages of Dry Goods, and argued by Mr. Cushing, attorney-general, for the United States, at the same time.

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 similar, in its circumstances, to the case of the United States v. Sixty-seven Packages of Dry Goods, and was argued by Mr. Cushing, attorney-general, at the same time.

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 similar, in its circumstances, to the case of The United States v. Sixty-seven Packages of Dry Goods, and was argued by Mr. Cushing, attorney-general, at the same time.

Held: that by force of the bill of lading the legal title was in the consignee, and he could maintain the action. Since that decision was made, the question has been much discussed, both in this country and in England. It is not easy to reconcile the decisions. We shall not attempt to do so here; the case does not require it.

Held: by successive commissions, until 15th January, 1833.

Held: that “ the general rule, as to parties, undoubtedly is, that when a. bill is brought for relief, all persons materially interested in the subject of the suit ought to be made parties, either as plaintiffs or defendants, in order to prevent a multiplicity of suits-, and that there may be a complete and final decree among all the parties interested.

This ease came up from the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York, upon a certificate of division of opinion between the judges, thereof. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

' Tais was an appeal from the circuit court of the United . States for the northern-district of New York., It was a case of collision, in' September, 1850, upon Lake Huron, between a propeller called Monticello, and a schooner " called The ‘Northwestern, by which the schooner and her cargo were entirely lost.’ In April, 1851, Mollison, the owner of the schooner, libelled the propeller, then lying in the port of Buffalo.

This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the .rcuit court of the United States for the eastern district" of Louisiana. The facts are. stated in the opinion of the court. Horn, .who was the purchaser of the property under the syndic, instituted a petitory suit in the third judicial district court of the State of Louisiana, against Bernard and Hare, who were tenants under the Bank of Tennessee.

This case was brought up by writ of error, from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Rhode Island. It was a suit brought by Clapp ¿gainst the city of Providence, to recover damages for an injury occasioned by an obstruction on the side-walk in one of its principal streets.

This was an appeal in admiralty, from á decree of the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York. It was a case of collision which took place on the 21st of April, 1853, near Squam Beach, between the schooner- San Louis, on a voyage from Jersey City to Philadelphiá, and the schooner Catharine, bound to New York. The facts in the ease are stated in the opinion of the court.

This was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Pennsylvania. The circumstances of the case are particularly set forth in the opinion of the court.

Held: would pay off all the advances made by ourselves, Messrs. Hicks and Co., and of W, S. Wetmore, who also made them some advances.

This case came up from the circuit, court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts, upon a certificate of division in opinion between the judges thereof.

Held: that § 64, ch. 104, 1 Rev. Code, 1819, is an extension of 4th Edw. III. ch. 7, de bonis asportatisj and that trespass for the mesne profits of land, recovered in ejectment against A., lies against his executor.

This case was brought lip, by'writ of error, from the circuit court of the United States for the District of Columbia, holden in and for Washington county. ' The question was, whether the Report of the Commissioner of Patents relating to arts and manufactures and also to' agriculture, which was divided into the two branches, and made, to congress at different, times, was, or was not, one document, and whether the delivery of it to the public printer of one or the other house…

This was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Maryland, sitting as a court of equity. The controversy related to a share in the Mexican Company, which was held by Goodwin,, and also to a claim on his behalf, to a commission of five per centum upon the proceeds in virtue of his agency, and under an agreement with the company.

Held: but what, in point of fact, was the

This was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Maryland. In its' leading features, it was identical with the preceding case of Williams, administrator of Williams, against the same defendants.

Held: that the bond for $10,000, given on the appeal from a decree for the payment of $65,000, was insufficient, as the act of congress requires a bond in the amount of .a judgment or decree, to prosecute the appeal or writ of error with effect.

This, like the preceding case of Stafford and Wife v. The Union Bank of Louisiana, was an appeal from the district court of the United States for the State of Texas, and was, in fact, a branch of the same case. It is unnecessary, therefore, to recite the circumstances of it, which were similar to those of the preceding case.

Held: that it was a proper case for mandamus, as the duty imposed was ministerial and positive, there being no other adequate remedy.

This "was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the District of Columbia, holden in and for the county of Washington. Ferdinand Clark, the appellant, prosecuted a el¡aim before the commissioners who acted uhder the treaty between the United States and Mexico,-which claim was for the unlawful seizure of the cargo of a vessel called The Louisiana.

This was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the District of Columbia, kolden in and for the county of Washington. The dispute was about the same sum of money which was in controversy in the preceding case of Clark v. Hackett. Booth filed his bill in the circuit court, claiming the money in virtue of his character of receiver, appointed by the chancellor of the first circuit in the State of New York..

This was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Missouri. The bill was filed by Thomas, in his lifetime, and referred to a complicated history of transactions, running from 1836 to 1848, the date of the bill. A condensed narrative of these transactions is given in the opinion of the court. The circuit court dismissed the bill, and the coihplainants appealed to this court.

. This was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Illinois. The bill was filed by Marsh, Frear, and Arbuckle, to set aside an award made by arbitrators chosen by them upon the one part, and Burehell upon the other, to hear all matters of claim of either party, upon or against the other, in the law or in equity.

This was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Alabama. The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court,

Held: a disposition in favor *373 of charity, to be carried into execution by the court, having regard to the objects particularly pointed out by the will. Ib. 54. There the objects pointed out were the promoting of the gospel in foreign parts, and the bringing up ministers in different seminaries in England.

This was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York. It was a libel filed by' the appellants of the steamboat John Jay, to enforce payment of a mortgage upon the boat, under the circumstances stated in the opinion of the court. The' district court dismissed the libel, which decree was affirmed by the circuit court, and the libellants appealed to this court.

<p>The act of congress, passed on the 3d of March, 1807, (2 Stats, at Large, 441,} appointing commissioners to adjudicate land claims against the United States, required that where titles to tracts of land, which had not-been previously surveyed, were confirmed by the board, they should be surveyed under the directions of the surveyor-general. When a certificate and plat should be filed in the proper office, a •patent certificate was to issue, which should entitle the claimant to a patent from the United States.</p> <p>Therefore, where conflicting locations were claimed of two concessions granted by the lieutenant-governor of Upper Louisiana, and no survey satisfactory to the publi,; officers was made until 1852, when a patent was issued in conformity with a survey directed by the secretary of the interior, this patent was conclusive, in a court of law, i : the location to which the party was entitled.</p> <p>He could dot, in an action of ejectment, sustain a claim that his patent ought to have had a different location, upon the ground that the confirmation by the commissioners conferred a perfect title to different land from that covered by the patent.</p>

This was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the District of Columbia, holden in and for the county of Washington. The opinion of the court states the marriage articles between Thomas Law and Elizabeth Park Custis, and the further history of the matter, up to the death of Thomas Law, in 1834. . In 1832, Thomas Law executed a will, in which he bequeathed $5,000 each to Thomas Law and Edmund Law, the sons of the late John Law, Esq., of Washington.

This was an appeal from the district court of the United States, for the northern district of Mississippi. It was a bill filed by Herndon, under the circumstances stated in the opinion of the court, and which was dismissed by the court below. The process against Davis was served upon Messrs.' Dowd and Murphy, his attorneys.

This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the circuit court of the United-States for the district of Rhode Island.

This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Missouri. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>A court of equity does not interfere with- judgments at law, unless the complainant has an equitable defence of which he could not avail himself, at law, because it did not amount to a legal defence, or had a good defence at law which he was prevented from availing himself of by fraud or accident, unmixed with negligence of himself or his agents.</p> <p>Therefore, a bill was properly dismissed where the complainant sought relief frota a judgment at law, fpr the following reasons: —</p> <p>1. Where he alleged that he had been defrauded in the sale of the property, for the purchase of which he gave his notes. The fraud was pleaded at law, and the verdict against him. Moreover, six years elapsed between the sale and suit, and no effort was made to rescind the contract.</p> <p>2. Certain verbal promises alleged to have been made by the agent of the vendor. These were not admissible in any court to vary a written contract. This defence was also set up at law, and failed.</p> <p>3. That certain letters from a co-defendant were read to the jury as admissions. This ground of relief was also untenable.</p> <p>4. That certain claims of set-off existed which he purposely abstained from.using in the trial at law. If he voluntarily waived this defence, relying upon a separate action, he has no right now to ask a court of equity to interfere.</p>

Stevens v. Gladding, 58 U.S. 447 (1854), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the copyright of a work is not attached to the physical copperplate used to print the work, so purchasing the copperplate does not purchase the copyright.

This case was brought up from the supreme court of Pennsylvania by a writ of error issued under the 25th section of the judiciary act. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>Where a complainant sought to recover by bill in chancery the proceeds of a judgment which he alleged that his debtor had against a third person, and it turned out that his debtor had only an interest of one fourth in this judgment, which fourth was collected and the proceeds paid over to the solicitor of the complainant during the pendency of the suit, the bill was properly dismissed at the cost of the complainant.</p> <p>The assignment of the judgment was,, in reality, conditional, although absolute on its face; and the present bill being in the nature of a bill to carry that assignment into effect, in such a case parol evidence is admissible to rebut or explain an equitable interest.</p> <p>The judgment was nominally assigned to the debtor, but his equitable interest in it was only one fourth, which was all that the complainant was entitled to. This fourth being paid before the decree, together with costs up to that time, it was proper to dismiss the bill at the cost of the complainant.</p>

This was an appeal .from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky. The ease is stated in the opinion of the court.

This case originated in the district court of the United States, for the middle district of Alabama, between Samuel Woodward, plaintiff in execution, and Amos Albritton, (claimant,) defendant, 'who were afterwards represented by their administrator and executor respectively.

This was an appeal from the district court of the United States for the northern district of California. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

Florida v. Georgia, 58 U.S. (17 How.) 478 (1854), was a United States Supreme Court case invoking the Court's original jurisdiction to determine boundary disputes between states. In this case the boundary dispute was between the State of Florida and the State of Georgia.

This was an appeal from the district court of the United States for the northern district of California. The act of congress respecting the claimants to land in California, and the title of Solano, under whom Ritchie claimed, are so particularly set forth in the opinion of the court, that the reporter has nothing to add upon those topics.

Held: and was authorized by law to convey. By the terms of this grant, if held valid, Alvarado had no transferable interest. The object of the government was to insure settlement and cultivation, and not to make grants that might be transferred to speculators, or incumbered in the behalf of creditors.

This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the circuit court of the United States for the middle district of Tennessee. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>This case was brought up, 6y wait of error, from the district court of the United States for the district of Iowa.</p> <p>The facts in the case are fully stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

This was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Mississippi. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This whs an appeal from the district court of the United States for tne northern district of Mississippi. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the district court of the United States for the northern district of Cali" fornia. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the district court of the United States for the district of Texas. The case is stated in theV>pinion of the court.

• This case was brought up, by wit of error, from the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Alabama. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was brought up by writ of error from the district court of the United States for the northern district of Mississippi. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

This was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the District of Columbia, holden in and for the county of Washington. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

This was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the District of Columbia, holden in and for Washington county. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.