Volume 16 — United States Reports

Held: that he was entitled to hold tho lands so devised to him by G. C., and transferred to him hy E. C. Error to the circuit court for the district of New-York.

The' brig Friendschaft was captured on' a voyage from London to Lisbon, by the.privateer Herald, a'nd brought into Cape iiar, in North Carolina, where the vessel and cargo were libelled, in July, 1814, as prize of war. The commercial agent of his royal highness the Prince Regent of Portugal, interposed a claim to several packages, parts of the said cargo, on behalf of the'respective owners, whom he averred to be Por-, tugúese subjects and merchants residing in Portugal.

This cause was argued by Mr. D. B. Ogdep, for the appellant and claimant, and by Mr. Hopkinson and Mr¿ Baldwin, for the United States.a

Held: that the letter did not import a guarantee of such engagements; and that parol evidence was not admissible, to explain the terms so as to affect their import, with regard to the supposed guaranty. Russell v. Clarke, 3 Dall. 415 ; s.c. 7 Cranch 69 . So, where B. wrote to C., "as I understand Messrs.

<p>(chancery-)</p> <p>Bill for the specific performance of an agreement for1 the exchange' of lands. The contract enforced.</p>

Appe al from the circuit -court of South Carolina. This was an information under the non-importation laws, against the ship Diana and cargo.’ Condemna^tion was pronounced in the district and citcuit courts, and the cause was brought by appeal, to this court.

This, cause, being -an instance, or revenue c?iuse, had been ordered to farther proof at a former term.a now offered to produce a witness to be examined, viva voce, in open-court on farther proof; butthe court, for the sake, of convenience, ordered his-deppsition to be taken in writing out of court.

This-cause was ordered to farther proof at the last term. Farther proof was produced at the present term and the cause submitted thereon without argument.

Held: that these documents, not being included within the terms of the confirmatory order in council, did not afford protection, and accordingly condemned the property. 1 Dods. app'x, D. In the cases of The Venus and The South Carolina, a similar question arose on the *212] effect of passports granted by Mr. Forster, the British minister in the *United States, permitting American vessels to sail with provisions from the…

Held: that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, in ejectment, where it was found by special verdict, that the defendant had not the first possession, nor entered under title, but upon the plaintiff's possession.

Held: that it was a guaranty for the definite amount of 30001., and when an advance was made to that amount, the guaranty became’/imclws officio, and was hot a continuing guaranty, Kirby v. Duke of Marlborough 2 Maule and Selwyn, 18.

This is the same cause which is reported ante, yol, 2. p. 161, and which was ordered to farther proof- at the last teriu. It was submitted without argument» upon the farther proof, at the present term.

Held: that by such sentence of a competent tribunal, the question had become res adjudicata, and might be opposed with success as a bar to any inquiry into the same facts, upon a second capture, during the same voyage. Yet, here, the parties, who were captors, were different; and the argument might have been urged, that the acquittal ascertained no fact.

Held: that the order of the Spanish government was obtained under such circumstances as took from it the character of avis major imposed upon the master, and was, therefore, no excuse for discharging the cargo ; but that the stepping and delay at Matanzas were permitted by the policy, and that the untading tho cargo Was hot a deviation.

Held: that this-was con- ' elusive evidence of the breach of blockade, but-that it was not sufficieht evidence to fix thé master with barratry!. That cannot be done, unless he- act-Criminally ; .and to gay that he broke the blockade in disobedience to the instructions of his. owners, from some private interest, of his own,- was too strong an inference from the evidence as it stood..

Held: that the United States- might 'recover in the present action, without producing from W, &‘S. a receipt or a re-endorsement of the hili; that W. & S. were to be presumed to have acted as the agents or bankers of the United States; and that all the interest which W. & S. ever had in the bill, was devested by the act of returning it to the party from whom it was received.

Held: that a blockade is, and in Massachusetts,.that-iiis not, a peril within the policy. The opinions of the. judges, of both these courts are, on every account, entitled to thehigfrest consideration. But they oppose each other» and are not given in cases precisely similar to that now before this court.

The plaintiffs filed their petition or libel in. the court below, stating, that on the 12th day of December, 1814, they énteré-d .into a contract with the defendant, for the purchase oi 100/000 pounds weight of cotton to be delivered by the defendant to the' plaintiff's on or before the 15th day of February, ensuing.the date'of said contract, the said cotton to be of prime quality, and in good order,, and for which the plaintiffs stipulated to pay at the rate of ten cents…

The plaintiff in error declared in assumpsit for that the defendant, &c. was indebted to the plaintiff in the «urn of 75Q dollars for a certain document or pap^r 'Called á Sawyer’s License by the plaintiff, &c. sold and delivered to the defendant, &c. and being so indebted, the defendant, &c. afterwards, &c. promised, &c> Plea son-assumpsit.

Held: that mere prior ocr cupancy of land, however recent, gives a good title to the occupier, whereupon he may recover, as plaintiff, againsfíaíl the world, except such as can prove an older and better title in themselves. Catteris v. Cooper, 4 Taunt. 547. See also, 8 East. 353. And this doctrine has been frequently recognized in the American courts. Jackson v. Hazen, 2 Johns. Rep. 22 . Jackson v. Harder, 4 Johns.

<p>Appeal frow the circuit court for the . district of Columbia.</p>

<p>(Instance Court.,)</p> <p>Libel for a forfeiture of goods imported, and alleged to have been in” v.oiced at a less sum than the actual cost at the place of exportation, with design to evade the duties, contrary to the 66lh section of the collection law, ch. 128. Restitution .decreed upon the evidence a® to the cost of the goods at the place where they were last shipped; theform of the libel excluding all inquiry as to their cost at the plac® where they were originally shipped, and as to the continuity of voy. age.</p>

The defendant in error declared against tne plaintiff in error, in debt, on a judgment of the supreme court of the State of New York, to which the defendant below plead nil debet, and the plaintiff below demurred.

Held: that by such sentence .of a-competent tribunal, the question had become res adjudícala, and might be opposed with success as a bar to any inquiry into the same facts upon a second capture during the. same voyage. Yet here the parties, who -were, captors, were different; and the argument might have been urged, that the acquittal ascertained no fact.

Held: that the prime cost, or value of the property lost, at the time of the loss, and in case of injury, the diminution in value, by reason of the injury, with interest upon such valuation, afforded the true measure for assessing damages.

Held: that without some act, it must be considered as being in the state in *which it ought to be; and the Lord ROSSLYN'S rule was new, and [*580 not according to the prior cases.

Craig et al. v. Radford, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 594 (1818), is a United States Supreme Court decision delivered by Justice Bushrod Washington on March 12, 1818. The dispute arose from a suit in chancery to establish a clear title to land in Kentucky located on the south bank of the Ohio River, 30 miles downriver from the mouth of the Scioto River. A military land warrant for 1,000 acres had been issued by the Colony of Virginia on January 24, 1774, and duly patented by a French and Indian War veteran, William Sutherland. Subsequently, treasury warrants were purchased from the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1780 by Craig et al. which they duly patented over parts of the same property.

The defendant, William Bevans, was ihdicted foi tnurder in the circuit court for the district of Massachusetts. The indictment was founded' on the 8th Section of the act of congress of the *30th of April, 1790, ch. 9. and wás tried tipon the plea of not' guilty.

Held: and all were of opinion it was very dangerous keeping longer at sea, and were for getting into the first port which could be made. The supercargo reluctantly consented. If he had not, the brig must have gone in, as her condition would have justified the act. In the afternoon of the 18th of February, 1814, the AEolus anchored in Bass-Harbour, after a passage of 75 days, in which every hardship had been experienced.

Georgia. This ship, being fe British armed vessel, was captar» ed in the year 1$14, on a voyage from Bordeab* to • Pensacola, by the sloop of was Wagp, and sénf inti» Savannah, in Georgia, where she- was ..libelledj.and condemned in the district court as.prize 'of war,' The cargo,.which, was claimed for M. Foussaf, a merchant domiciled át Bóurdeáux, wag also .condemned; On ap~, peal fo the circuit .court as to the.cargo farther proof was ordered, and restitution decreed to…

This was an action of trespass, brought by the pláihtiff in error against the defendant in error, for. levyikg a fine ordered to be collected by' the, sentence' 6t a court martial, under an act of the legislature of the state of Pennsylvania¿ which was- alleged t as having-been improvider.Uy issued under the 25th section of the judiciary act, c;h..2Q. the decision of the state court, not being a “final judgment” in the cause—

Appeal to the circuit court of the district of Maryl- and. Tfie British ship Anne írith a cargo belonging to- Prize proceedings were duly instituted against .the ship and cargo, and a claim was afterwards interposed in behalf of the Spanish consul, claiming resti ■tútion of the property, on account óf ah asserted vi* .elation .of the neutral territory of Spain. ■ The testimp■ny óf the carpenter was thereupon taken by the .claimant, and the captors were also' admitted to give…

This weis an' action of ejectment, brought- by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, to recover the possession of certain lands in the state of Kentucky. Tó support his action, the plaintiff bélow showed the following title': a phtent to Alexander Skinner; the will of Alexander Skinner, devising all his estate to- Henry Lee; and a deed from Henry Lee to.

Evans v. Eaton, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 454 (1818), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a patent disclosing an improved method of manufacture by means of several different improved machines should be construed to claim both the method and the improvements to the machines, but not to include the machines apart from the inventor's improvements. It was the third published Supreme Court decision on patents, and the first to deal with substantive patent law. It was the first Supreme Court case to deal with the question of when an invention is patentably distinct from the prior art. It was also the second of four successive Supreme Court cases related specifically to the Oliver Evans flour mill patent.

•Appeal from a decree of the circuit court for the1' district of Columbia. The facts of this case were as follow :• WilliamProut,. the plaintiff in the court' below, on the. 29th of July, 1812; endorsed, without, any consideration, a promissory note made by Lewis Deblbis, in his favour for 4,400 dollars payable in thirty days after date.

This was an action of ejectment, brought by the plaintiff in error, to recover the possession of- 5000 acres of land, lying in Maury county, in the state of Tennessee, and grC - argued, that the stats of North Carolina, upder the conditions of her afct of 1789, eh. 2. for ceding the western lands to the United states, had a right to perfect grants on all such entries ás this,,at any time after the cession, and not merely within the time which was limited by thither* existing…

This was an action of ejectment brought by the plaintiff in error in the circuit court for the district of Georgia*, to recover the possession of certain lands ly- ■ ing in that state. At the tripl, a special verdict was found, as follows: “ We find that the lessors of the plaintiff have not been . in the state of Georgia since the defendants, or their ancestors, came, into possession of the premises sued for.

This waq a suit for a marine trespass, cómurencetl in the distriet court for the southern district of New- , Yortc, by the libel'1 ants and appellants, who were the o\v:.er, master, supercargo-, and crew of .the Haytian Schooner Amiable Nancy,against the defendants, who* were the owners of the private' armed American vessel Scourge.

Held: that the crown, on failure of heirs, had no equity against the. next of kin to have it laid out in real estate in order to claim by escheat. a The Attorney- General, in reply, admitted, that in ..considering the legal operation of the devise, the national character of the devisee to be laid out of view ; and-that the estate, Which its terms would pass could not be varied by any consideration of that char•acter.

This cause was brought from the circuit court for the district. of-Columbia, upon a certificate that the opinions of the judges of that court were divided upon a Question-which occurred in the cause, under the. judiciary act of 1802, ch. 291, (xxxi.) s.. 6. It-was su’b- • mitted without argument.

This cause was argued by Mr. D. B: Ogden, and Fe&, 2Gtk Mr. C. J. Ingersoll, for' the appéllants and claimants, and by the Attorney General, for the United States.

This case was certified from the circuit court for the Massachusetts districts At the circuit court of the United States, for the first circuit, begun and holden at Boston, within and for the Massachusetts district, on Wednesday, the fifteenth day of October, in the year of our lord one thousand eight hundred and seventeen! Before the honourable Joseph Story, associate jus •’ tice, and John davis, district judge.