Volume 6 — United States Reports

This was a writ of error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of the district of Columbia, sitting at Alexandria, upon a forthcoming bond, taken under the laws of Virginia.

This was an appeal by Faw, the original defendant, from a decree of the Circuit Court of the district of Columbia, sitting as a court of chancery, at Alexandria, in July 1803 (Reported below, 1 Or. C. C. 117).

This was a feigned issue, between Tench Coxe, a citizen of the state of Pennsylvania, and Edward Pennington, a citizen of the state of New York, try the question, *whether sugar actually refined, but not sold and sent out of the manufactory, before the 1st of July 1802, is liable to any duty to the United States, upon being sent out after that day.

Held: that an error in judgment would not excuse an illegal capture ; and in Leglise v. Champante, *2 Str. 820, it is adjudged, that probable cause of seizure will not justify the officer, (a) In 3 Anstr. 896, is a case of seizure of hides, where no provision was made in the law that probable cause should be a justification. This case cites Pickering v. Truste, 7 T. R. 53.

The facts of this case are thus stated by the District Judge in his decree.3 “The libel in this cause, is founded on the act entitled “an act further to suspend the commercial intercourse between the United States and France, and the dependencies thereof” (27 th February 1800, 2 U. S. Stat. 7) ; and states that the schooner (The Charming Betsy) sailed from Baltimore, after the passing of that act, owned, hired or employed by persons resident within the United States, or by…

Held: that a corporation aggregate may act by an agent, although not authorized under the corporate seal. But the plaintiffs have, by their bill of exceptions, admitted the note of the 6th of September to be the answer of the company to their letter of the-3d, and therefore, cannot now deny the authority of the secretary. Neal v. Irving, 1 Esp. 61.

Capron v. Van Noorden, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 126 (1804), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court allowed a plaintiff to dismiss a case that he had lost at trial because of a lack of diversity jurisdiction, leaving the plaintiff free to bring the case again in North Carolina.

This was an action on the ease brought by the plaintiffs in error, upon two policies of insurance, in the Circuit Court of the first circuit, holden at Providence, in the district of Rhode Island, (a) in which action, judgment was rendered, at April term 1802, for the plaintiffs in error, upon one of the policies only, viz., that upon the vessel. *The declaration consisted of four counts. 1.

Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 170 (1804), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the President of the United States does not have "inherent authority" or "inherent powers" that allow him to ignore a law passed by the U.S. Congress.

This was a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the district of Columbia, sitting in Alexandria. The only question in the case arose upon the following bill of exceptions. “In this case, the plaintiffs were admitted to be, and always to have been, British subjects, residing in Great Britain, and the defendant to be, and have been, a native and always a citizen of the now state of Virginia ; and this suit was commenced on the-day of-, in the year 1802.

Error from the Circuit Court for tbe district of Massachusetts, in an action on the case, upon two policies of insurance, whereby John Barker Church, Jr., caused to be insured $20,000 upon the cargo of the brigantine Aurora, Nathaniel Shaler, master, at and from New York to one or two Portuguese ports on the coast of Brazil, and at and from thence back to New York.

Held: that in the case of a legal bankruptcy, the right of the United States remained unimpaired. So far as the claim of the United States was was concerned, the assignment under the commission of bankruptcy did not transfer the property.

This was a libel for salvage, filed in the District Court of the United ■States for Maryland district, by the master, officers, crew, owner and freighters, of the British merchant ship The Firm, against the French ship Le Blaireau.

Held: that the averment was supported. Lord Eldon, Ch. J., was of opinion, that the plaintiff had a sufficient interest throughout the entirety of the cargo ; and Heath, J., said, he did not see why a joint-tenant, or tenant in common, has not such an interest in the entirety as will enable him to insure.

This was a case certified to this court from the Circuit Court of North Carolina, under the act of congress of 29th April 1802, § 6 (1 U. S. Stat. 159), which provides for the event of an opposition in the opinions of the two judges, who are by law to hold the circuit court. The certificate was in the following form, viz.: United States of America : North Carolina District.

Held: that the issue was not maintained on his part. If Chapman had resided in the state, on the 11th of February 1777, he would, on the very principles of his own defence, have been liable to indictment. But Coxe was an inhabitant of the state of New Jersey, on the 4th of October 1776, when a declaratory law, similar to that of Pennsylvania, was passed. After which, it was too late for him to attempt to change sides.

This was a case certified from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Massachusetts district, in which the opinions of the judges of that court were opposed.

The declaration was for money paid and advanced by the defendant in error, for the use of the plaintiff in error. Upon trial of the issue of non assumpsit, two bills of exception were taken by the original defendant. The verdict was for plaintiff, $4155 dam.ages.

This was an appeal by Reily from a decree of the Circuit Court of the district of Columbia, which dismissed his bill in equity, with costs. The defendant, Beall, some time in the year 1789 or 1790, had brought suit, in the name of Lamar, for the use of Beall, by Robert Smith, his attorney-at-law, against Reily, the appellant, upon a note for $400, and recovered judgment in the general court of Maryland.

United States v. Fisher, 6 U.S. 358 (1805), is a United States Supreme Court case about whether debts to the government are preferred for settlement in bankruptcy proceedings.

This was a libel in the District Court of the United States for Maryland district, against the schooner Sally, of Norfolk, and cargo, Elias De Butts, claimant, seized by the collector of the port of Nottingham, as forfeited under the act of congress prohibiting the slave trade.

United States v. Schooner Sally, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 406 (1805), was an 1805 decision of the United States Supreme Court which found that the question of forfeiture of a vessel is of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, not of common law.

This was a writ of error to reverse a decree in chancery of the Circuit Court for the district of Georgia, rendered in favor of the defendants in error The bill alleged that John Rae and John Sommerville, as copartners in merchandise, were, on the first day of January l'/'75, indebted to Stead, a British creditor, in the sum of 3864?. sterling, on account.

This was an appeal-from the Circuit Court for the district of Massachusetts, on a decree in chancery, dismissing the plaintiffs’ bill; the object of' which was to charge the defendants upon a policy of insurance, and to obtain relief against a mistake alleged to have been made, by inserting only the name of Graves in the policy, whereas, the interest of both Graves &. Barnewall was intended to have been insured.

This was a question certified from the Circuit Court for the fifth circuit, holden in the Virginia district, on which the opinions of the judges of that •court were opposed.