Volume 19 — United States Reports

This was ti e case of a ship and cargo, sailing under Spanish c olours, and captured by the privateer Roger, Quarles, master,a on an ostensible vpyage from Havana to Hamburg, but really destined for London, or with an alternative destination, and orders to touch in England for information as to markets, and further instructions. 7'he ship sailed from the Havana, on the 24th of November, 1814, under convoy of the British, frigate Ister, with which she parted company on. the…

Assumpsit against the defendant below, (Bossard,) as drawer of an inland bill of exchange drawn at Baltimore on the 3d of October, 1816, upon one Martin Gillet, for 31,244 79 cents, payable six mpnths after date, and accepted by Gillet. Plea, non assumpsit.

Assumpsit against the defendant, (Beall,) as endorser of a promissory note, drawn by one Tunis-Craven, dated at Baltimore, October 22d, 1811, in favour of the defendant, and by him endorsed to the plaintiffs, for 191 dollars 17 cents, negotiable at the hank of Washington, payable six months after date. At the trial the note was given in evidence, and the handwriting of the drawer and endorser admitted.

Held: that a defendant, against whom an office judgment had been entered on the 16th of May, had a right, under the laws and practice of Virginia, to appear at the adjourned session, and hare the default set aside, on. giving special bail, and pleading issuably. *107 February 9th. Titis cause was argüed by Mr. ‘Lee. and Mr. Swann, for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Taylor, for the defendant in error.

This was a# action of covenant, brought by the dé-fendant in error, (Lee,) against the plaintiff m error, (Hopkins,) to recover damages tor not conveying certain tracts of military lands, which the plaintiffin error had agreed to' convey, upon the defendant in error relieving a certain incumbrance held by one Ha wleigh Colston, upon an estate called Hill and Dale, and which Lee had previously granted and sold to Hopkins, and for which the military lands itt question were to…

<p>Error to the Circuit Court of West Teanessee.</p>

moved to docket and dismiss the appeal in this case, which was a suit in Chancery, commenced in the Circuit Court of Kentucky, and a decree entered, from which aii appeal was taken, but not prosecuted. He produced a certificate from the clerk of tlie Court below to that effect.

This was an action of debt commenced by the defendants in error against the plaintiff in error in the District Court of Louisiana, upon a judgment obtained in the Circuit Court of Massachusetts. The original suit, in which the judgment was obtained, was commenced by a process of foreign attachment, according to the local laws of Massachusetts; but the defendant, Mayhew, subsequently appeared and took defence.

. Error to. the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania. This was an action of assumpsit brought by the plaintiffs in error, in the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, against the defendant in error, as endorser of a promissory note, made at Philadelphia by one Edward Shoemaker', on the 6th of June, 1811, for 2,500 dollars, payable in six months after date, and endorsed by the defendant to the plaintiffs at the same place, on the same day.

This was an action of debt brought in the District Court of Kentucky against the defendant, a former contractor for supplying the troops of the United States with provisions. The defendant pleaded nil debet.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought in the Court below, by the defendants in error, citizens of Pennsylvania, against the plaintiff in error, a citizen of Tennessee, as the endorser of a promissory note drawn by another citizen of Tennessee, and endorsed to the plaintiffs. The only questions in the cause were, (1.) Whether the Court below had jurisdiction ; and, (2.) whether notice of protest was necessary to charge the endorser in this case.

Held: that the commission of a sovereign protected that vessel from all inquiry, notwithstanding the flagrantly unjust conduct of the French Emperor in appropriating the property of an American citizen to his own use, without the form of a trial, and incorporating it into his military marine.

Held: that- the insured were not entitled to recover as for a total loss of the voyage. Error to the Circuit Court of Maryland.

<p>{Instance Covet.)</p> <p>A question of fact, under the 46th section of the Collection Law of the 2d March,' 17S9, c. 128. exempting from duty the wearing apparel, and other personal.baggage, of persons arriving in the United States.</p> <p>Where the res gesta, in a revenue causé, are incapable of explanation consistently with the innocence of the party, condemnation follows. although there be no positive testimony of the offence haring been committed. Circumstances ate sometimes more convincing than the most positive evidence.</p> <p>Although a mere intention to erade the payment of duties be not, per se, a cause of forfeiture, yefwhen a question arises whether an act has been committed which draws after it that consequence, such intention will justify the Court in not putting on the conduct of the party, in respect to the act in question, an interpretation as favourable as under other circumstances it would be disposed to do.</p>

These were the cases of the cargoes of two Spanish ships, captured and condemned by a pretended Court of Admiralty at Galveztown, constituted by Commodore Aury, under the alleged authority of the Mexican republic. The goods were, after this condemnation, brought into the port of New-Orleans, and there libelled by the original Spanish owners in the District Court. That Court decreed restitution to the original owners, and the captors appealed to this Court.

The facts of this case.were as. follow: In the year 1807, the schooner Collector and cargo were libelled in the District Court of the district of Maryland, as forfeited under the act of Congress, prohibiting commercial intercourse with certain ports of St. Domingo.

Error tó the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia. This was an action of trespass, brought in the Court below, by the plaintiff in error, against the defendant in error, for an assault and .battery, and false imprisonment: to which the defendant pleaded the general issue, and a special plea of justification.

, This was an allegation filed in the District Court of South Carolina by the Vice Consul of his Catholic Majesty, claiming restitution of the ship La Conception and cargo, as the property of Spanish subjects to him unknown, which had been illegally captured by the armed ship La Union, sailing under the flag of Buenos Ayres, and pretending to have a commission or letter of marque from that government, but actually built, equipped, armed, and manned in the United States.

Held: 1st That the plaintiffs had a demand in law against the defendants, which could be maintained iff this form of action. 2dly. .That whether the plaintiffs could, or could not, be made responsible in any. form of action which might be devised for the possible loss resulting 'from the breaking up of the intended voyage to St. Petersburgh, the defendants were not entitled to a deduction from the plaintiffs’ demand, for’…

moved to dismiss the writ of error in this case, which was a real action, upon a suggestion of the death of the demandant and plaintiff in error, pending the proceedings in this Court.

Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821), is a landmark case by the Supreme Court of the United States that asserts the Court's power to review state supreme court decisions in criminal law matters if defendants claim that their constitutional rights have been violated. The Court had previously asserted a similar jurisdiction over civil cases involving U.S. parties (see Martin v. Hunter's Lessee). The defendants were members of a prominent Baltimore banking family. A U.S. senator and two U.S. representatives served as attorneys for the opposing sides. The two defendants, Mendes I. Cohen and Philip I. Cohen, would later rise to the positions of U.S. Army Colonel and Maryland Delegate (Mendes), and U.S. Postmaster (Philip).

This was a bill filed by the plaintiff .helow, (Ogden,) against the defendant below, (Gibbons,) in the Court of Chancery of the State of New-York, for an injunction to restrain the defendant from navigating certain steam boats on the waters of the State of New-York, lying between Elizabethtown, in the State of New-Jersey, and the City of New-York; the exclusive navigation of which with steam boats had been granted, by the legislature of New-York, to Livingston and Fulton,…

This was a bill in equity, filed in the Court below? in which Sullivan, one of the plaintiffs, was described as a citizen of Massachusetts, ánd others of the plaintiffs, as citizens of Connecticut and Vermont, and the defendants weré described as a corporate body incorporated by the legislature of the State of New-York, for the purpose of navigating, by steam boats, the waters of the East river, or Long Island Sound,-ir said State.

moved to docket and,dismiss, the appeal in the case, which was a prize cause, commenced in the Circuit Court of North Caroliná, in which a decree for costs ánd damages had. been , entered against the captors, from which they appealed, but had not prosecuted their appeal. He produced a certificate from the Court below to that effect.

The object of .the bill in equity filed in this case, was to recover from the defendant, Blake, a sum of money arising from the sale of a tract of land, called Yazoo Jands, alleged to have been made , in 1795, by thé. defendant, as agent of certain persons named in the bill, in which lands the plaintiff) Hughes, claimed an equitable interest, in common with the immediate, principals of the defendants, and, therefore, to be entitled to a proportion of the proceeds resulting…

Bartle v. Coleman, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 475 (1821), was a United States Supreme Court case.

This was a bill in Chancery, filed in the Court helow, by the plaintiff George W. Prevost, as administrator de bonis non, with the will annexed, of George Croghan, deceased, against the defendants Simon Gratz, Joseph.

. . . iiiii ■. . . Alexandria, under the local-law giving a process in Chancery in the nature óf a foreign attachment. The bill charged a debt due On bills of exchange, from the defendant, Henderson, to the complainant; that the debtor was an absentee; that he had funds in the hands of the defendant Auld ; and prayed a condemnation of those funds, to answer the complainant’s demand.

moved to docket and dismiss the appeal in this case, which was a suit in Chancery, commenced in the Circuit Court of South Carolina, no transcript of the record having been lodged by the appellants with the clerk of this Court, within the first six days of the term, according to the rule. opposed the motion, upon the ground that no certificate was produced from the clerk of the Court below, stating that •an’appeal had been taken, according to the rule*

Held: that the collector was not precluded from making a seizure of the goods after the second entry, for a variance between the contents of the packages and the first entry, and that such seizure must be followed by confiscation, unless it should appear that such difference proceeded from accident and mistake, and not from an intention to defraud the revenue. March 12th. March 14th.

Held: and Mr. Brashier at the distance of sixty or seventy miles. Mr. Barr immediately employed Mr. Bledsoe, a lawyer of eminence, to assist Mr. Hughes, who had been engaged by Mr. Gratz, and some time afterwards spoke to Mr. Wickliffe, but did not pay him a feé.

This was an indictment in the Circuit Court of South Carolina against Lewis Daniel, charging him with having knowledge of the actual commission of the crime of wilful murder, committed on the high séá, by John Furlong; and with unlawfully, wickedly, and maliciously, concealing the same, &c. The indictment set forth, at large, the indictment and conviction óf John Furlong, for wilful murder on the high seas, and then charged Lewis Daniel with the knowledge and concealment of…

Appeal .from the Circuit Court of Ohio. Ferdinando O’Neal was owner of a Virginia military warrant for 4,000 acres of land, dated the 17th of Juty, 1783, and employed Nathaniel Massie, a deputy surveyor, to locate it, and to survey and return the plats. John Watts purchased the right of O’Neal, and on the 7th of January, 1801, paid Massie 50 pounds in full satisfaction for locating and surveying the warrant.

This was a suit in Equity, commenced in the Court below by the respondents against the appellants, in which the injunction obtained on the filing of the bill was made perpetual. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

<p>Error to the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia. .</p>

<p>(Local Law.)</p> <p>A porree to convey lands.most possess the same requisites, and observe the same solemnities, as are necessary in a-deed directly conveying the lands.</p> <p>A title to lands can only be acquired and lost according to the laws of the State in which they arc situate.</p> <p>The laws of Ohio require all deeds of land to be executed in the presence of two witnesses, and a deed executed in the presence of one witness only is void.</p> <p>A parol exchange of lands, or parol evidence, that aconveyance should operate as an exchange, will not convey any estate or interest in lands.</p>

This was an ejectment brought in the Court below, in which the lessor of the plaintiff claimed title under a patent, describing the survey as “ beginning at an ash in the middle of a line of Glenn’s land, and with it north 20 degrees, east 800 poles, crossing three branches to a hoop wood and sugar tree, corner to.

<p>(Construction of Statute.)</p> <p>Under the Embargo Act of the 25th April, 1808, c. 170. [lxvi.] if a vest sel, not actually arriving at her port of original destination, excites an honest suspicion in the mind of the Collector, that her demand of a permit to land the cargo was merely colourable, this is not a termination of t íe voyage so as to preclude the right of detention.</p> <p>Under what circumstances the Collector has a right to land the cargo of the vessel thus detained.</p>

<p>(Local Law.)</p> <p>The power given to the Corporation of Georgetown, by the act of Maryland, of November, 1797, c.-66. to gradüate the streets of that City, is a continuing power, and the Corporation may from timé to time alter the graduation so made.</p> <p>The ordinance of May, 1799,-by which the Corporation of Georgetown first exercised the power of graduating the streets, is not in the nature óf a compact, and may be altered by the Corporation.</p>

<p>(Constitutional Law.)</p> <p>A-Stafe Court cannot issue a mandamus to an officer of the United States."</p>

<p>(Local Law.) '</p> <p>Under the laws in relation to the Mutual Assurance Society of Virginia, property offered for insurance,' on which the premium has not been paid, and which is sold without notice, is not liable for.tbe premium in the hands of the vendee.</p>