Volume 8 — United States Reports

This case was certified from the Circuit Court of the district of Pennsylvania, upon a division of opinion between the judges of that court, upon the question whether certain articles of copper, viz., round copper bars, round: copper plates, and round copper plates turned up at the edges, imported by the defendants, were subject to duty, within the meaning of the acts of congress, viz., 20th July 1789, and 10th of August 1790 (1 U. S. Stat. 24, 180), by which “ copper in…

This was an appeal from tbe sentence of the Circuit Court for the district of Pennsylvania, in a cause civil and maritime, in which Jennings was the libellant, and Carson, the respondent; the former claiming to be owner of the sloop George and cargo, captured, in the year 1778, by the American privateer Addition, commanded by Moses Griffin, of which the respondent, Carson, was part-owner, and which was libelled and condemned, on the 31st of October 1778, as lawful prize, by…

<p>This was a case certified from the Circuit Court for the district of Pennsylvania, in which the opinions of the judges of that court were opposed to each other upon the question, whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover, upon a case stated, the material facts of which were as follows :</p> <p>The defendants insured $12,500, on the freight of the plaintiff’s American ship The Manhattan, which had been chartered by Mintum & Champlin, for a voyage from New York to Batavia, and back to New York. The freight was valued in the policy at $50,000. The charter-party contained a covenant, that if any dispute should arise between the plaintiff and Minturn & Champlin, respecting the freight, the cargo should not be detained by the plaintiff, provided they *should give good security to abide by the -* award of arbitrators, who were to be appointed to settle such dispute. On her homeward voyage, on the 10th of February 1805, the ship was taken and detained, on the high seas, by a British armed vessel, and the second mate and twenty-one of the seamen taken out, and two British officers and fifteen seamen put on board, with orders to take her into a British port. The second mate was put on board another vessel, and arrived in New York on the 26th of February, when he gave the above information to the plaintiff, who, on the 28th of February, communicated it, by his letter of abandonment of that date, to the defendants.</p> <p>The Manhattan, with her cargo, was carried into Bermuda, on the 12th of February, and libelled as prize of war. On the 20th of April 1805, both vessel and cargo were acquitted. From this sentence, so far as it respected the cargo only, an appeal was prayed, which did not appear to have been decided ; but on the 8th of May, the cargo was delivered to its owners, on their giving security, and on the 8th of July, the vessel and cargo arrived in New York ; but before their arrival, the defendants having refused to give counter-security, so as to relieve the owners of the cargo from the effect of the security which they had given upon getting possession of their goods, the plaintiff, on the 6th of June 1805, after the vessel was liberated, brought the present suit. Upon the arrival of the vessel and cargo, Minturn & Champlin gave security to abide the award of the arbitrators concerning the freight, according to the covenant in the charter-party, and obtained possession of the cargo.</p>

This was an action of debt, brought originally in the District Court of the United States for the district of Pennsylvania, for the penalty of a bond, dated November 16th, 1802, conditioned to pay to the collector of the customs, “the sum of $7720.41, or the amount of the duties to be ascertained' as due and arising on certain goods,” &c., “ entered by the above-bounden Willings & Francis, as imported in the ship Missouri, from Canton, as per entry, dated 16th November…

T. Frost and Lund Washington, as sureties, conditioned that she should prosecute her appeal upon four several judgments rendered against her by a justice of peace, in Maryland.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiffs in error, subjects of Hamburg, to recover the balance due upon an account-current, the debit side of which consisted principally of the following charges, viz., insurance made in Hamburg on the defendants’ ship Abigail, from the United States to Hamburg, and on the ship and cargo from Hamburg to the Havana, and on an intended voyage back from the Havana to Hamburgj advances made to the defendants to make up a cargo…

The bill stated that Henry Osborne, Jacob Weed, James Armstrong, James Seagrove, and the complainant, John Webb, on the 22dof December 1786, entered into an agreement with each other, under seal, to procure lands on their joint account, in the state of Georgia, to an amount not exceeding 200,000 acres, at *their joint expense, and for their joint benefit. That grants were obtained for about 165,000 acres.

Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75 (1807), was a case brought before the United States Supreme Court. Bollman held that the constitutional definition of treason excluded mere conspiracy to levy war against the United States. The Supreme Court decided that "To constitute a levying of war, there must be an assemblage of persons for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose. Enlistments of men to serve against government is not sufficient."

The facts of the case, as they appeared upon the record, are as follows: Skillern put into the hands of Richard May several land-warrants, to locate in Kentucky, under an agreement that May should have half the land for locating the whole, who accordingly located the quantity of 2500 acres, in the name of Skillern, but not to his satisfaction, and the matter was not settled between them, at the time of Robert May’s death, when his interest in the lands so located descended…

This was an action of assumpsit upon the promissory note of W. M. Duncanson, payable to George French, or order, and by him indorsed to the plaintiffs, for $1400, at sixty days, dated October 10th, 1798, and due December 9th-12th.

This case was again certified from the Circuit Court for the district of Virginia.

This was a case certified from the Circuit Court for the district of Vermont, the judges of that court(b) being opposed in opinion upon the question, whether the plaintiffs, devisees of a tract of land, to be equally divided between them, could, under the will, support a joint action of ejectment.

This was an action of debt, brought by the United States in the District Court of Kentucky district, for the penalty of an official bond given by Sthreshley, with O’Bannon as his surety, dated the 13th of September 1796, the condition of which was, “that whereas, the said Thomas Sthreshley is appointed, under the acts of congress laying duties upon spirits distilled within the United States, and upon stills, a collector of the revenue which shall or may arise, by virtue of…

The bill complained that the defendant had obtained an elder patent for land covered by the complainants’ elder entry, and prayed that the defendant might be compelled to convey to them the legal title. The only question was, whether the entry under which the complainants claimed, described the land with sufficient certainty.

M. Viers and Patsy, his wife, late Patsy Henly, to compel the latter to convey to the former the legal estate in certain lands in Kentucky, which one Ebenezer Brooks, since deceased, conveyed, by deeds dated the 10th of November 1791, to the defendant’s wife, while a widow, and which Brooks, by his last will, devised to the complainant Montgomery.

This was an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court for the district of ■Connecticut, in a suit in chancery.

The writ of ■error was dated the 23d of December 1805, and returnable to February term 1806 ; the citation also bore the same date, and commanded the defendant in error to appear at the same term. The writ of error was filed in the clerk’s office of the court below on the same 23d of December. The judgment below was not signed, until the 4th day of January 1806.

The cause of condemnation, set forth in the sentence, was, that the brig was “ cleared out for Cadiz, a port actually blockaded,” and that the master “persisted in his intention of entering that port, after warning from the blockading force, not to do so, in direct breach and violation of the blockade thereby notified.” On the trial in the court below, the jury found a special verdict, stating, among other things, that the blockade of Cadiz was not known at Charleston, when…

The material facts stated, were, that the Brig Rolla, a neutral vessel, while prosecuting the voyage insured, was captured by a belligerent cruiser, and libelled as prize of war. On the 9th of July 1806, a final sentence in favor of the vessel and cargo was passed, and on the 19th of the same month, about one o’clock P. M., restitution was made.

This cause was now argued again by Du Ponceau and Ingersoll, for the plaintiff in error, and by Rawle and E. Tilghman, for the defendant. The report of the former argument (2 Cr. 280), having been so full, it is deemed unnecessary to state more of the argument, at this term, than will be sufficient to show the points to which additional authorities were adduced.

These were three separate libels against these three vessels, which were seized by the collector of the district of Delaware, for a supposed breach of the revenue laws. The sentence of the court below being in favor of the claimants, the United States appealed.

The delivery as an escrow being traversed by the United States, issue was thereupon joined; on the trial of which, the United States demurred to the evidence produced on the part of the defendants, which consisted of the deposition of T. T. Davis, W. This evidence, upon the demurrer, was, by the court below, adjudged insufficient.

The verdict and judgment below were for the plaintiffs, on the second count of the declaration, which stated, in substance, that it was agreed between the plaintiffs and defendants, that if the plaintiffs would, at the request of the defendant, sell and deliver to a John Hackett and Alexander *2251 ®railt “ divers goods, wares and merchandises,” he, *the defendant, J in consideration of the same, promised to pay the plaintiffs as much money as they reasonably deserved to…

The plaintiffs below, Woods & Bemis, took a bill of exceptions to the refusal of the court to continue the cause until next term, upon their motion, grounded on an affidavit, stating the absence of a witness, the facts which they expected to prove by him, on a belief that he would prove those facts (which appeared to be material to the issue), that he resided in the state of Maryland, about twenty-five miles from the place of trial, had been summoned, and promised to attend;…

At the trial below, the defendant, Young, offered in evidence a sealed agreement between the parties, and offered further evidence that the work and labor for which this action was brought, were done in consequence of that agreement; and prayed the court to instruct the jury that, if, from the evidence, they should be of opinion, that the said work and labor was done in consequence of the sealed agreement, the action of assumpsit would not lie: which instruction the court…

This was an appeal from the sentence of the Circuit Court for the district of South Carolina, which reversed that of the district judge, who awarded restitution to Rose, the libellant, of certain goods, part of the, cargo of the American schooner Sarah.3 This vessel, after trading with the brigands or rebels of St. Domingo at several of tbeir ports, sailed from thence, with a cargo purchased there, for the United States ; and had proceeded more than ten leagues from the…

<p> Foreign court of admiralty. </p> <p>If a vessel, seized by a French privateer, within the territorial jurisdiction of the government of St. Domingo, for breach of the French municipal law, prohibiting all intercourse with certain ports in that island, be carried by the captors directly to a Spanish port, in the island of Cuba, she may, while lying there, be lawfully proceeded against and condemned, by a French tribunal, sitting at Guadaloupe.</p> <p>The possession of the sovereign of the captors, gives jurisdiction to his courts. The possession of the captors in a neutral port, is the possession of their sovereign. If the possession be lost by re-capture, escape, or voluntary discharge, the courts of the captor lose the jurisdiction which they had acquired by the seizure.'2</p> <p>The trial of a municipal seizure must be regulated exclusively by municipal law. No foreign court can question the correctness of what is done, unless the court passing the sentence loses its-jurisdiction by some circumstance which the law of nations can notice.</p>

Avowry by the defendant, stating that Crammond was seised in fee of the locus in quo, and demised the same to the plaintiff for the term of three years, at a certain rent, and that because $111.67 of the rent was in arrear and unpaid, he acknowledged the taking as bailiff of Crammond, &e., and prayed judgment for double rent.

The bill stated that the complainants’testator and the defendant’s testator, together with three others, viz., Boisfeillet, Du Bignon and Grand Closmesle, became joint purchasers of the islands of Sapelo, Blackbeard, Jekyll, and half of' St. Catharine, on the coast of Georgia ; that Dumoussay was the acting partner, and kept all the accounts, &c. That an account was stated and sighed by the two testators, Chappedelaine and Dumoussay, on the 30th of April 1192, by which the…

The defendant pleaded performance generally. The United States, in their replication, assigned a special breach of the condition of the bond, in not paying over to the United States the sum of $328. *The judgment below was against the United States, who sued out poi ^ the present writ of error. But— L

Ladd, against Thomas Patten and his sureties, on a bond given for the performance of his duty as vendue-master. The object of the suit was to recover a sum of money alleged to remain in his hands as vendue-master, on account of goods sold for Ladd.

Russell Lee, a citizen of the United States, in the year 1793, died seised m fee of a tract of land called Argyle, Cowall and Lorn, situated in that part of the district of Columbia which was ceded to the United States by the state of Maryland. Mrs. Dawson, the lessor of the plaintiff, would be entitled to the land by descent, unless prevented by the application of the principle of alienage.

This was a writ of error to a supposed judgment of the Circuit Court of the district of Columbia, for the county of Washington, between Hodgson & Thompson, plaintiffs, and Jacob Mountz, John Mountz and Henry Knowles, defendants. Hodgson & Thompson had recovered judgment in the court below, at December term 1805, against Jacob Mountz and George Reintzel.

Blaine libelled the ship Charles Carter, Bell, master, owned by McCawley, upon two bottomry-bonds ; one executed in London, by Bell, the master, on the 14th of July 1796, and payable ten days after the arrival of the ship in Virginia ; the other executed on the 27th of October 1796, by McCawley, the owner, in Virginia, where he resided, and payable in thirty days after the arrival of the ship in Europe.

This case was certified from the Circuit Court for the district of Pennsylvania, the judges of that court being divided in opinion upon the question, whether, upon the state of the pleadings, the judgment ought to be rendered for the plaintiffs ?1 It was an action brought by the United States against Gurney and others, upon a bond conditioned to comply with a certain written agreement between them and the secretary of the treasury of the United States, of the same date, “to…

Held: that the exportation of arms, &c. constituting the equipment of the vessel, was not an exportation within the statute.

The defendant below took a bill of exceptions to the refusal of the court to nonsuit the plaintiff on the trial, because he had not proved “ an entry within seven years after the title of the grantees accrued, or any entry by either of the heirs or jtersons claiming under the grantees, within seven years after their titles respectively accrued.” The lessor of the plaintiff had produced in evidence two grants from the province of Georgia, in 1166, to Alexander Baillie, under…

Tbe Chief Justice, in delivering tbe opinion of tbe court, stated tbe material facts, found by tbe special verdict, to be as follows, viz : Tbis action was brought against tbe underwriters, to recover tbe amount of a policy insuring tbe ship John and Henry, from Charleston to Port Republican, or one other port in tbe Bite of Leogane.

(1 U. S. Stat. 85.) The plaintiff in error claimed title to land in the state of Ohio, under the act of congress, passed in 1800, and the decision of the state court was against him. The defendant in error also claimed title to the same land, under the same act of congress. The question was, whether in such a case this court had an appellate jurisdiction to revise the judgment of a state court.

<p> District of Columbia. </p> <p>An appeal or writ of error lies from the judgments of the circuit court of the District of Columbia, to this court, in cases where the Bank of Alexandria is plaintiff, and the judgments below are in its favor, notwithstanding the clause in its charter to the contrary.</p> <p>The right of Virginia to legislate for that part of the District of Columbia which was ceded by her to the United States, continued until the 27th of February 1801.</p> <p>The act of Virginia incorporating the Bank of Alexandria is a public law.</p> <p>Queers? Whether private acts of assembly of Virginia, printed by the public printer of that state, under the authority of law, may be read in evidence, without other authentication.</p>

The plaintiff below, Rebecca Willison, claimed title to the slaves, under her grandmother, and at the trial, offered parol proof, that the grandmother, while Kentucky was a part of Virginia, had given them to her, by a deed, which was lost.

The material facts appearing by the bill of exceptions taken by the defendant below, were, that Lee claimed, as trustee for Kennedy, under a deed from Wilson, duly acknowledged and recorded, and dated the 1st of December 1804. The question was whether, at the date of that deed, Wilson had a good title to the slave.

Stead’s executors brought their bill in equity against Elizabeth Course, the widow, and Caroline Course, the infant daughter of Daniel Course, deceased, to set aside, as fraudulent, a deed of land made by Courvoisie, a collector of taxes for Chatham county, to Daniel Course, and to charge the land for payment of a debt due from the late firm of Rae & Somerville to the complainants’ testator, according to a former decree of the court.

This was an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court for the district of Georgia, which dismissed the complainant’s bill, brought to foreclose a mortgage.

Dwight and others brought a foreign attachment against Pollard and Pickett, in the county court of Hartford, and declared in an action of covenant upon a deed of bargain and sale, in fee-simple, of certain lands in the county of Wythe, and commonwealth of Virginia, by which the defendants below covenanted that they were “ lawfully seised of the lands and premises, with their appurtenances, and had good right and lawful authority to sell and convey the same, in manner and…

<p>In the Circuit Court for the district of Pennsylvania, at November term, 1806, a motion was made by Rawle, in behalf of Lewis and others (the jurors in civil cases who had attended the court at that session), that the marshal be ordered to pay each of the jurors one dollar and twenty-five cents for each day’s attendance;</p> <p>But the judges of that court being divided in opinion upon the question, it was certified to this court.</p>

The vessel arrived at Barbadoes, and sailed from thence for Antigua, but on her voyage to that island, was captured by a British vessel, and carried into Barbadoes, and there condemned in the vice-admiralty court, for attempting to break the blockade of Martinique. The jury found a special verdict, upon which the judgment below was in favor of the plaintiffs.

This was an appeal from the sentence of the Circuit Court of the district of Columbia, reversing that of the district court, which condemned the schooner Betsey and Charlotte, and her cargo, as forfeited, for a violation of the act of congress of the 28th of February 1806, entitled “an act to suspend the commercial intercourse between the United States and certain parts of the island of St. Domingo.” (2 U. S. Stat. 351.) The libel being filed, and the monition returned…