Volume 18 — United States Reports

Held: for the trial of delinquents, and the collection of these pecuniary penalties. The State legislature, acting with a sincere desire to promote the objects of the national government, supplied these defects, by adding such details as were indispensa'bly necessary to execute the acts of Congress. *12 Feb. 16th, 1820 There is, then, a perfect harmony between the two; laws. a Act of the 28th of February, 1795, c. 277.

Held: that every water which flows and reflows, is called an arm of the sea, so far as it flows. "Que chescun ewe, que flow et reflow es appelle bras de mer cy tantaunt come el flowe." The same doctrine is quoted and confirmed by Lord HALE, who states, that the sea is either that which lies within the body of a county, or without; and that an arm or branch of the sea which lies within the fauces terræ, where a man may…

United States v. Smith, 18 U.S. 153 (1820), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Congress may import the definition of piracy from international law without defining it in the criminal statute with particularity.

Held: that every water which hows and reflows, is called an arm of the sea, so far as it flows. “ Que chescun ewe, que flow et reflow, est appelle bras de mer cy tantaunt come el flowe.” The same doctrine is quoted and confirmed by .Lord Hale, who states, that the sea is either that which lies within the body of a county, or without; and that an arm or branch of the sea which lies within the fauces terree, where a man may…

<p>Under the laws of Tennessee, where lands are sold by a summary pro- • -ceeding for the payment of taxes, it is essential to the validity of , the sale, and of the deed made thereon, that every fact necessary to rive the Court jurisdiction should appear upon the record.</p> <p>Under the statute of limitations of Tennessee, the running of the statute can only be stopped by actual suit, if the party claiming under it has peaceable possession for seven years. But such a possession cannot exist if the party having the better right takes actual possession in pursuance of his right.</p> <p>©nettenant'in common may oust his co-tenant, and hold in severalty; but a silent possession, unaccompanied with any act amounting to • an ouster, or giving notice to the co-tenant that his possession is ad-. verse, cannot be construed into an adverse possession.</p> <p>in the summaforPthesa?¿Tf n<fssee"Vo?t¿e ‘axés. every fact necessary d°0tfm tfthe appear inmthe rec0ld‘</p> <p>limitations of Tennessee. construction of the statute of</p> <p>Ground f<?t reversing the judgment in this case.</p>

<p>The following -entry is -invalid for want of tbat -certainty and precision required by law: “ William Perkins and William Hoy, enter 6,714 acres of land on a treasury warrant, No. 10,692, to join Lawrence Thompson and James M'Millan’s entry of 1,000 acres that is laid on the adjoining-ridge between Spencef’s-creek and Kingston's fork of Licking on tbe east, and to ran east and south for quantity.” .. The ■ entry referred to in the foregoing was as follows: “ 9 th of December, 1782, Lawrence Thompson and James M‘Millan, assignee of Samuel ' Baker, enter 1,000 acres on atreasury warrant, No. 4,222, on the- dividing ridge between Kingston’s fork of Licking and Spencer’s creek, ■a weal branch of said fork, to includea large pond in the centre of a square, and a white oak tree marked X, also an elm tree marked' VS, near (he Bide of the pond.”</p>

This cause was continued for farther proof at Fe.r bruary term, 1816. (Vide ante, vol. I. p. 112.) Owing to various accidents, the farther proof was not received until the last term, and the cause was now argued upon the farther proof then produced and filed.

<p>A question of proprietary interest on farther proof. Restitution dfi, creed, with costs and expenses to be paid by the claimant.</p> <p>In general, the circumstance of goods being found on board an enemy’s ship raises a legal presumption that they are enemy’s property.</p> <p>p*f|n claimant‘</p>

This was an indictment in the Circuit Court of Virginia, against Ralph Klintock, a citizen of the United States, charging him with a piracy committed on the high seas, in April, 1818, on a vessel called the Norberg, belonging to persons to the jurors unknown. He was found guilty generally.

<p>Congress has authority to impose a direct tax on the district of Co7 lumbia, in proportion to the census directed- to be taken by the constitution.</p> <p>The power of Congress to levy and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, is co-extensive Ywith the territory of the United Stales.</p> <p>The power of Congress to exercise exclusive jurisdiction in all cases whatsoever within the district of Columbia, includes the power of taxing it.</p> <p>-The power of lay and collect & ¿Strict3of to'tiíe'territonited°stetesU*</p> <p>The provision that direct.taxes shall be apportionedamong the several States, according to their respective numbers, to be ascertained by a census, was not intended to restrict the power of imposing direct taxes to States oniv.</p> <p>But Congress' afe not bound to extend a thedistrictand territories.</p> <p>The power of j'isiSf over the district in-cities the power of imposing taxes,</p>

<p>It is essential to the validity of a grant, that the thing granted should be so described as to be capable of iieing distinguished from other things of the same kind. But it is not necessary that the grant itself should contain such a description, as without the aid of extrinsic testimony to ascertain precisely what is conveyed.</p> <p>Natural objects called for in a grant may be proved by testimony, not found in the grant, but consistent with it.</p> <p>■ The following description, in a patent, of the land granted, is not void for uncertainty, but may be made certain by extrinsic testimony: “ A tract of land in our middle district on the west fork of Cane Creek, the waters of Elk river, beginning at a hiccory, running north 100.0 poles to a white oak, then east 800 poles to a stake, then south 1000 poles to a stake, thence west 800 poles to the beginning, as per plat hereunto annexed doth appear.”</p> <p>The' plat and certificate of survey annexed to the patent, and a cop,y of the entry on which the survey was made, are admissible in evidence for this' purpose,</p> <p>A general plan made by authority, conformably to an act of the local legislature, may also be submitted with other evidence to the jury, to avail, quantum valere potest, in ascertaining boundary.</p> <p>‘ But a demarcation, or private survey, made by. direction of a party interested under the grant, is inadmissible evidence, because it would ■ enable the grantee to fix a vagrant grant by bis own act.</p>

United States v. Furlong, 18 U.S. 184 (1820), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that felonies committed in international waters must be specifically defined by Congress, and the Offenses Clause is broad enough that Congress may criminalize offenses on U.S. ships anchored in foreign ports. Essentially, United States v. Furlong made a distinction between international and national jurisdiction. When international law applies (for example, in a case of piracy), the first state to prosecute "uses up" the international law, rendering subsequent prosecutions impossible.

<p>The present Constitution of the United States 'did not commence its , operation until the first Wednesday in March, 1789, and the provision in the Constitution, that “ no State shall make any law impairing the obligation of contracts,” does not extend to a State law enacted before that day, and operating upon rights of property • vested before that time.</p> <p>The books of a corporation, established for public purposes, arc evidence of its acts and proceedings.</p>

<p>In appeals to this'court, from the Circuit Courts, in Chancery cases, . the parol testimony- which is heard at the trial, in the Court below, ' ought to appear in the record.</p> <p>A final decree in equity, or an interlocutory decree, which,, in a great measure, decides the merits of the cause, cannot be pronounced until all the parties to.the bill, and all the parties in interest, are before the Court.</p>

<p>Explanation of the former decree of this Court in the same caáé, 9 Cranch, 500.</p>

Held: that the children of H. S. were not entitled to the lands, as devisees under his will, under the act of Assembly; nor did the will so far operate, as to render them capable of taking under the act, as beiDg named his legal representatives in the will.

Held: that on a guaranty to pay for goods sold to a third person, the declarations of the latter were not evidence to charge the person giving the guaranty; because there might be collusion between the third person and the plaintiff.

<p>Au information for a quo warranto, to try the title to an office, cannot be maintained but at the instance of the Government; and the consent of parties will not give jurisdiction in such k case.</p>

Held: that this was competent evidence to prove the positive fact of. the existence of the entries specified in the copies; but that in order to have a negative effect in disproving the entries alleged to be spurious, the whole abstract ought to be produced in Court, or Inspected under a commission, or the keeper of the document examined as a witness, from which the Court might ascertain the fact of the nonexistence of…

Held: that the injunction could not be decreed until their answers had come in, although the bill stated, and the .defendant admitted, that he had paid the judgments, and was then the only person interested in them, because such statement and admission anight be made by collusion. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Virginia.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the defendants in error against the plaintiffs in error, on the following check: This check was offered in'evidence by the plaintiff below, and testimony to prove that the said Patón, before, at the time, and subsequent to the drawing of the said check, was cashier of the said Mechanics’ Bank, and the said Minor the teller thereof; and in order to prove that the said check was drawn by the said William Patón in his capacity as…

. From the proceedings in the Court below, it appeared, that the brig Josefa Segunda being Spanish property, and on a voyage from the coast of Africa to the island of Cuba, with a cargo of negroes, was captured'on the 11th day of February, 18! 8, off Cape Tiberon in St. Domingo, by the Venezuelan privateer, the General Arismendi On the 24th of April following, she was seized in the river Mississippi, by certain custom house officers, and conducted to Néw-Orleans, where a…

Article Three, Section Two, Clause One of the Constitution of the United States gives the Supreme Court of the United States original jurisdiction over matters including "controversies between two or more States". Historically, this jurisdiction has most often been called upon to settle boundary disputes, in which the states cannot agree on the correct location of the state line between them. While most of these cases are original jurisdiction, a handful have also been decided on appeal from decisions of lower courts, usually arising from disputes between private parties.

This was the case of a Spanish ship.captured by ^ie Venezuelan privateer La Guerriere, on the high seas, in November, 1817, and afterwards forcibly taken possession of near the mouth of the Mississippi, by a detachment from the United States ketch Surprise, and brought into the port of New-Orleans.

This was an action of~debt against the defendant, on a bond given by Jerusha Dennison, and the defendant, to the plaintiffs, with, a condition to perform the award df certain persons chosen to arbitrate all differences, &c. between the plaintiffs and Jerusha Dennison, either as administratrix of Gideon Dennison, deceased, or in any other capacity.

Held: the said person commonly called Reed, in and upon the arms and breast of him, the said Reed, upon the high seas, and on board the vessel aforesaid, and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State, piratically, &c. did strike and thrust, giving to the said person commonly called Reed, in and upon the arms, and breast of him, the said Reed, upon the high seas, in and on board the vessel aforesaid, and out of the…

<p>A question of proprietary interest on farther proof. Condemnation pronounced.</p>

"Error to the Circuit Court of Pennsylvania. This was an action of debt originally brought in the District Court, and carried by writ of error to the Circuit Court, from which it was brought to this Court, upon a case agreed by the parties, and a Certificate that the opinions of the judges were opposed upon a question arising in the cause.