Volume 7 — United States Reports

This was a case certified from the Circuit Court of the United States, for the district of Pennsylvania, in which the opinions of the judges of that court were opposed. The action was an ejectment to try the title of the “ Holland Company to a very large tract of land in Pennsylvania, lying north and west of the' rivers Ohio and Allegheny, and Conewango creek, purchased of that state,, under the act of assembly of the 3d of April 1792 (3 Dall.

<p>Priority of the United States. — Costs.</p> <p>The United States have no lien on the real estate of their debtor, until suit brought, or a notorious* insolvency or bankruptcy has taken place; or, being unable to pay all his debts, he has made a voluntary assignment of all his property; or, the debtor having absconded, concealed or absented himself, his property has been attached by process of law.1</p> <p>A mortgage of part of his property, made by a collector of the revenue, to the surety in his official bond, to indemnify him from his responsibility as surety on the bond, and also to secure' him from his existing and future indorsements for the mortgagor at bank, is valid against the United States, although it turns out that the collector was unable to pay all his debts, at the time the mortgage was given, and although the mortgagee knew, at the time of taking the-mortgage, that the mortgagor was largely indebted to the United States.2 Costs are not to be awarded against the United States.</p>

This case came before the court, upon a bill of exceptions to the opinion of the Circuit Court of the district of Columbia, for the county of Alexandria, upon a motion for execution on a forthcoming bond, taken under the act of assembly of Virginia. Rev. Code, p. 309.

Held: such as Normandy, Guienne, Brittany , &c. This was also the case with many of their subjects; as in the case of the Duke of Richmond, Duke D'Aubigny , &c. Hale, P. C. 68. Calvin's case , 27. ( b. ) In this country the personal services are dispensed with, but the land pays the common tax or duty. 25 Alienage is incident to birth only, 4 T. R. 308, Doe, ex dem.

Held: the mortgagee was not liable. In the case of Chinnery v. Blackburne, Merryfield acted as the owner ; he navigated the vessel, and made all contracts about her, from London to Antigua. He was on board of her, on the voyage, and at Antigua, gave the command of the vessel to another master ; he also insured the vessel; and at Antigua, acted personally in command of the ship.

United States v. More, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 159 (1805), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it had no jurisdiction to hear appeals from criminal cases in the circuit courts by writs of error. Relying on the Exceptions Clause, More held that Congress's enumerated grants of appellate jurisdiction to the Court operated as an exercise of Congress's power to eliminate all other forms of appellate jurisdiction. The second of forty-one criminal cases heard by the Marshall Court, More ensured that the Court's criminal jurisprudence would be limited to writs of error from the state (and later, territorial) courts, original habeas petitions and writs of error from habeas petitions in the circuit courts, and certificates of division and mandamus from the circuit courts.

This was an action in the Circuit Court of the district of Columbia, for Hte county of Alexandria : and the question arose upon the construction of the act of assembly of Virginia, for “ reducing into one the several acts con•eerning wills,” &c. (Rev.

Law having a mortgage on real estate in the city of Washington, and Ray having a subsequent mortgage on the same estate, Law had filed his bill in chancery in the Circuit Court of the district of Columbia, for a foreclosure .and sale of the mortgaged property, and made Ray a defendant. The bill Laving been taken for confessed against Ray, a decree was obtained by Law for a sale.

Held: that if two be engaged in a transaction illegal, but not malum in se, -and one of them pay the whole money, he *may recover a proportion from the other, if this other has expressly promised to pay it.

Held: that a former verdict and judgment between the mother of the plaintiff, who sued for his freedom, and the defendant, by which it was adjudged that the mother was a slave, were conclusive evidence that the plaintiff, her son, was a slave. And this was in a question where freedom was concerned, and where the natural leaning of the court is presumed to be in favour of freedom.

Held: that in an action against the sheriff for taking goods without leaving a year's rent, the declaration need not state all the particulars of the demise; but if it does, and they are not proved as stated, there shall be a nonsuit . 6 MARSHALL, Ch. j. You consider the declaration as setting forth the indorsement in hace verba . 7 E. J. Lee .

This was a writ of error to the “ Court for the Trial of Impeachments, and the Correction of Errors, in the state of New York,” under the act of «congress of the 24th September 1789, § 25 (1 U. S. Stat. 85), which gives the supreme court of the United States appellate jurisdiction upon a judgment in the highest court of a state, in which a decision in the suit could be had, where is drawn in question the construction of any clause of a ’•'statute of the United States, and…

The object of the bill was to recover from the defendants, as legatees and devisees of George Galphin, deceased, a debt due by him to the complainant’s intestate, as surviving partner of Clark & Milligan.

The declaration was in debt, on a bond, dated the 3d of October 1799,, in the penalty of $5000.

This writ of error came up at last term from the District Court of the United States for the Kentucky district, which, by law, has the jurisdiction of a circuit court of the United States. The suit was originally brought by the United States against Lewis Moore, as principal, and Dobynes and Morton, as sureties, in a bond given by Moore, as a collector of the revenue.

<p>This was a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Georgia, sitting in chancery, to reverse a decree, which dismissed the complainant’s bill, on a demurrer.</p> <p>The complainant, as assignee of Cruden & Company, alleged in his bill, that on the 24th of December 1782, during the war between the United States and Great Britain, the British armed ship Dawes, owned by Cruden & Company, who were British subjects, and commanded by Oswell Eve, the defendant, sailed with a cargo, the property of Cruden & Company, from Kingston, in Jamaica, for New York, then in possession of the British troops. That on her passage, the ship met with much tempestuous weather, by which she was rendered incapable of reaching her port of destination; in consequence of which, the defendant, after *consultation with the crew and passengers, came to the determination, to sail for the nearest port in *• the United States, thereby to save the lives of the crew and passengers, which were in imminent danger, and also to save as much as possible to the owners. That the vessel and cargo were liable to be captured by the cruisers of the United States, or if she went into any port of the United States, without being captured, she would become a droit of admiralty to the United States, or some of them. That the defendant stated to the crew and passengers, that as congress, by their resolve of the 9th of December 1781, had enacted and declared, “ That all ships and vessels, with their cargoes, which should be seized by the respective crews thereof, should be deemed and adjudged as lawful prize to the captors,” as the vessel was incapable of reaching New York, and as she would be totally lost to the owners, to himself, and the crew, if captured by the cruisers of the United States, .the best mode would be, to seize and capture the vessel and cargo, make the passengers, who were military men of high rank and distinction, prisoners of war, and sail for the nearest port, and there obtain a condemnation of the vessel and cargo, for the benefit and compensation of the crew, who would lose their wages, if she was regularly captured, and that the residue should remain in the defendant’s hands, as agent and trustee, and for the sole use and benefit, of the owners. That this plan was agreed to and executed ; and an agreement, signed by the defendant and the crew, ascertaining what share each man was to be allowed, and which was to be the basis of the judge’s decree, as to the distribution of the prize money. That the crew consented to the defendant’s having a larger share than they would, if he had not declared his intention to act in the whole as the agent and trustee, and for the benefit, of the owners. That the vessel was accordingly carried into a port in North Carolina, libelled, condemned and distribution made, according to the proportion fixed by the agreement. That the defendant afterwards purchased a number of the shares of the seamen, for the benefit of his owners ; that he also purchased part of the cargo, at the marshal’s sales, and shipped it to Charleston, where he sold it to great profit, for the benefit of the P&044 owners. *The bill then prayed a discovery, and that the defendant *- might account, and be decreed to pay, &c.</p> <p>To this bill, the defendant demurred, and assigned two causes of demurrer. 1. That it appears by the complainant’s own showing, that the ship and cargo were regularly condemned under the resolve of congress, of the 9th of December 1781, as lawful prize, and the proceeds decreed to the defendant and others, as lawful captors, the legality of which decree ought not now to be called in question. 2. That the bill contains no matter of equity, but what is cognisable at law.</p> <p>Upon argument, the judge (Stephens) sustained the demurrer, and dismissed the bill, but without costs.</p>

Held: that E.’s legacy of 15001. should be '.liable to 11 ’s annuity. 1 This tí as a writ of error to tbe Circuit Court of the United States for x«*e district of Georgia, to reverse the decree of that court, which dismissed ■the bill of tne complainants, Sarah and Abigail Silsby.

Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States first addressed the question of complete diversity for diversity jurisdiction.

This was a writ of error to the judges of the Court of Equity of the state of South Carolina, holden in and for the eastern district of the said-, state. James Gordon, “ of the city of Charleston, in the state aforesaid,” filed a. bill in equity, against Caldcleugh & Boyd, “ of London, in the kingdom of Great Britain,” William Muir, “ of Hamburg,” and John Gillespie, George' McKay and Joseph Reid, whose residence was not mentioned in the bill.

McFerran, in his bill, alleged, that on the 19th of March 1784, the defendant, Taylor, for a valuable consideration, executed his bond to the complainant, for the conveyance of 200 acres of land, out of 1000 acres located by him on Hingston, or out of 5000 acres which Taylor then had for location. The condition of the bond was as follows: “that if the said Richard!

The caveat was in these words: “Let no grant issue to James Speed, a citizen of the state of Kentucky, for 139 acres of land, said to be surveyed upon an entry of 200 acres, by virtue of a treasury-warrant, number 13,800, the 24th of November 1182, and the survey dated the 10th day of November 1191, because John Wilson, a citizen of the state of Virginia, claims the same; part, by virtue of a survey made on his settlement-right, the 20th day of January 1186, and part, by…

3s. 5 The defendant, being an infant, pleaded by Archibald McLain, his guardian. 1. Payment; to which there was a general replication and issue. 2.

The transcript of the record contained a bill of exceptions, which stated,, that the plaintiff offered in evidence the following writing, addressed by the-plaintiff below, to the defendants, the present plaintiffs in error, viz : “ Will you receive my flour on the following terms, viz., whenever a load of flour is delivered, should any cooperage be wanting, you charge it to the-wagoner, and deduct it from the carriage.

The condition of the bond was as follows : “Whereas, Jesse Simms, in jail and custody, by virtue of a writ of capias ad satisfaciendum, sued out of the clerk’s 'office of the court of Hustings, holden in Alexandria, dated the 12th day of August 1800, at the suit of George Slaeum, assignee of Charles Turner, sergeant of the court of Hustings aforesaid, for the sum of $1285.45, including all legal costs at the time of the caption aforesaid, having prayed the benefit of the…

The defendant pleaded the general issue, and upon the trial, took two bills of exception. The first stated that this action was commenced on the 10th of July 1801, and that on the trial, the plaintiff offered evidence of the sale and delivery of goods, to the amount of $2149.33.

, and from thence, always, until his death, resided in the town of Alexandria, in the county of Alexandria, in the district of Columbia, and chat the defendants have always resided in the same town, and that the plaintiffs have not obtained probate of the said letters testamentary, at anyplace within the district of Columbia, or the United States of America. L

Negro London brought an action of assault and battery against Scott, to try his right to freedom.

This is a list of Supreme Court of the United States cases in the areas of military justice, national security, and other aspects of war. This list is a list solely of United States Supreme Court decisions about applying law related to war. Not all Supreme Court decisions are ultimately influential and, as in other fields, not all important decisions are made at the Supreme Court level. Many federal courts issue rulings that are significant or come to be influential, but those are outside the scope of this list.

Held: that a lease, or other estate made by the party, after outlawry, and before an inquisition taken, will prevent the king’s title, if it be made bond fide, and upon good consideration; but if it be in trust for the party only, it will not be a bar; but that no conveyance whatsoever, made after the inquisition, will take away or discharge the king’s title. 5 Bac. Abr. 564; Salk. 395; Carth. 442.

Held: that if a ship, insured for one voyage, sail upon another, although in the same track part of the way, and she be taken before the dividing point between the two voyages , the policy is discharged.

This was a case certified from tbe Circuit Court of tbe fifth circuit, bolden in tbe district of Virginia, where a question arose upon which tbe opinions of tbe judges were opposed.

Erbob to the Circuit Court of tbe United States for the district of Maryland. The action was brought by the plaintiffs in error, to recover from the defendant, Barry, the price of three cargoes of tobacco, purchased and shipped by Barry, for account of the plaintiffs, but which were captured on their way to Spain, and condemned. The ground of the claim was, that Barry had not strictly pursued his instructions as to the shipments.

John Atkins Burford, a prisoner confined in the jail of the county of Alexandria, in the district of Columbia, petitioned this court for a habeas corpus, to inquire into the cause of his commitment, alleging that he was confined under and by color of process of the United States, and praying for a certiorari to the clerk of the circuit court of the district of Columbia, for the county of Washington, to certify the record by which his cause of commitment might be examined,…

This was a case certified from the Circuit Court for the fifth circuit, and Virginia district, in chancery sitting, in which the opinions of the judges (Marshall, Ch.

On the 20th of August 1804, Jared Shattuck exhibited his libel in the district court of the United States for the district of Pennsylvania, in the following form.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Mason against Lawrason, surviving partner of the firm of Lawrason & Smoot, upon the following note : *“ Alexandria, 28th November 1800. [*493 “ Mr.

The plaintiffs in error brought an action of debt on a bond, against the defendants, in the court below; to which the defendant, Summers, after oyer of the writ, pleaded in abatement, that on the day of the issuing of the original writ, as well as on the day of its service on him, he was one of the marshal’s deputies for the district of Columbia, and that the writ was not directed to a disinterested person, appointed by the court of the district of Columbia, or by any…

Thomas Knox, administrator, with the will annexed, of Raapzat Heyleger, a subject of the King of Denmark, brought an action of trespass vi et armis, in the supreme court of judicature of the state of New York, against Joshua Sands, collector of the customs for the port of New York, for seizing and detaining a schooner called the Jennett, with her cargo.

This was an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court for the district of Virginia, which dismissed the complainant’s bill in equity.

The writ of error was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, the parties not appearing upon the record to be citizens of different states.