Volume 59 — United States Reports

Held: as assignee of Alvarado, a pervading interest in the entire section of country, and that the land might be taken .anywhere within it, so that the rights of others were not disturbed.

This was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Mississippi. The case was this. Joséph Meek, a citizen and resident of Davidson county, State of Tennessee, died on the 12th of February, 1838, leaving property in the States of Tennessee and Mississippi. He left three children, namely: James L. Meek, Joseph Meek, and a daughter, who was married to John Munn.

■ This case was brought up from the supreme court of Missouri by a writ of error issued under the 25th section of the judiciary act. ' It was an ejectment,-brought by the board of school commis-. tioners; to recover from Kissell. the following lot in St. Louis county, namely: Beginning on the west side of a street running .parallel with and next east of.

This case wr^ brought up, by writ of error, from the circuit court of the United States for the District of Rhode Island. The defendant in error filed the record, and docketed.the case on the 24th of November, 1855, and on the ensuing 1st of December the plaintiff,in error filed his copy of the record, within the period allowed him-by the 63d rule of-icourt.

Held: that the claim, in this condition, was assignable, and properly assigned to Colonel Fremont; and, as there was no grant to any specific tract of land, that Colonel Fremont held a common interest in the public lands generally, lying within a large section of country described in the grant.

filed certificates of the clerk of the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana, stating that judgments were entered against the plaintiffs in error in that court, on the 16th day of November, 1855, and that writs of error were duly applied for, and allowed on the 21st of November, 1855, returnable to the December term, 1855, of the supreme court of the United States.

- This case was argued and decided at the last term, and is reported in 17 Howard. now stated to the court that a petition from the appellee was on file, verified by affidavit, and moved for a rehearing, which was opposed by Mr. Wahr, counsel for the appellant.

This was an appeal from the circuit court of the • United States for the southern district of New York. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. The points of law made by the respective counsel were so interwoven with the facts, that they cannot be explained without an elaborate statement of the case.

<p>This case was brought up by writ of error from the circuit ¡ court of the United States for the district of Illinois.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p> <p>Mr. Browning said that he felt some embarrassment in consequence of the decision of this court in Moore v. Brown, 11 How. 434; but he thought that a different construction had since been given to the statute by the supreme court of Illinois, in Irving V. Brownell, 11 Illinois, 402, 414. These cases were then' discussed.</p> <p>Wright also claimed under an auditor’s deed in 1833, which was within the protection of the act of 1835, and which would have furnished a sufficient defence, if- he had been in possession for seven years. Whether he was so or not, was a question of fact for the jury. But the court withdrew it from them. Wright had clearly had possession of one and a half acres, and yet the court decided that he was entitled to the protection of the stat- • ute of 1835, or that of 1839. ■</p> <p>Mr. Broioning then' contended that Wright was within' the act of 1839, holding under claim and color of title made in good faith, and cited Cro. Jac. 122; 9 Watts, 73; 5 Barr, 300; 3 Serg. & Rawle, 298; 6 Barr, 326; .8 ibid. 506; 7 S. & B. 173; 2 Caines, 183; 4 Johns. 202; 9 Cow. 557; 4 Paige, 199; 6 Johns. 47; 16 ibid. 299'; 18 ibid. 44,360; 13 ibid. 119; 3 Conn. ■246, 402; 4 Georgia, 115; 4 Hayw. 185; 5 ibid. 288; 5 Pet. 402; 11 ibid. 41; 10 ibid. 442 ; 8 ibid, 244, 253.</p> <p>Mr. Browning then commented on Irving v. Brownell, admitting that the court said in that case that the words, “ claim and color of title made in good faith,” in the statute of 1839, meant title of higher character and superior dignity to that intended by the words, “ connected title in law or equity, deducible of record,” in .the statute of 1835. But he contended that this dictum was virtually overruled by Davis v. Easley et al. 13 Illinois, 192, 199; and then cited cases to show that the title of Wright was acquired in good faith. 16 Johns. 299; 8. Pet. 253; 9 Cow. 558.</p> <p>Mr. Williams contended that the acts of 1835 and 1839 require occupancy under a titleprimá facie good; the first-named act requiring residence on the land, and the other the payment of taxes, and that the claim of title be made in good faith. It is not denied that this construction is according to the fair import of the terms of these acts, nor that it is the settled construction of the Kentucky limitation law, from which the terms, “,a connected title in law or equity, deducible of record,” &e., are. copied, as well as of similar acts in .Kentucky, Louisiana, and Tennessee. Moore v. Brown et al. 11 How. 424; Skyle’s Heirs v. King’s Heirs, 2 A'. K. Marsh. 387; Frique v. Hopkins et al. 4 Martin, N. S. 224; Barlow v. Bill, 4 Bibb, 106; Clay v. Miller, ibid. 461; Young v. Murray, 3 A. K. Marsh. 58; Powell v. Harrison,.2.Pet. 241; Walker v. Turner, 5 ibid. 668; Poage’s Heirs v. Chinn’s Heirs, 4 Dana, 50.</p> <p>He then argued to show that the following-consequences did not result from his construction of the laws, as was contended for by the opposite counsel:—</p> <p>1. That it renders the acts altogether inoperative.</p> <p>. 2. -That it was obviously the intention of the legislature to protect the possession of a person purchasing upon the faith of conveyances made by the officers of the State who were authorized to sell and convey lands.</p> <p>3. That these acts were' intendéd to protect actual settlers and cultivators, whose titles were liable to exception, against speculators .having better titles.</p>

This cáse was .brought up by writ of error, from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Illinois.. , It. was an action .of-ejectment brought, by,Bayne against Graham, to recover..the southeast quarter of section. 15, in townships seven, range four east; The circumstances under which, .the case came up are stated in the opinion of the court. but as their arguments were directed to the merits of-.the case,'-which-Were not decided by this court, they are…

Held: in the court of exchequer in England, that the master can pledge the ship for repairs, or loan of money for that purpose, in the foreign port, only by bottomry security; and that, in the absence of this, the merchant must look to the personal responsibility of the owner or master. 73 Eng. Com. Law R. 417 ; Stainbank and Ambler v. Shepherd.

This case was brought up by writ of error from the circuit court of the United States for the District of Columbia, holden in and for the county of Washington. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. The points did not involve any’ general principles of law, and are, therefore, omitted. - •

This case was brought up by writ of error from the circuit court of the second judicial circuit of the State of Maryland, in - and for Anne Arundel county. The case is stated in' the opinion of the court.

Held: in some of the circuit courts, that the averment of citizenship in a different State from the one in which the suit ivas brought, and which it is necessary to make in order to give jurisdiction to the federal courts, must be proved on the general issue.

Held: after great consideration and a full examination of the authorities, that “if-a deed bear on its face evidence that the grantors intended to convey, and the grantee expected to become invested with, an estate of a particular description or ■ quality, and that the bargain had proceeded upon that footing between the parties; then, although it may not contain any covenants of title, in the technical sense of the term,…

This casé was brought up from the supreme court of Indiana, by a writ of error issued under the 25th"section of the judiciary act.' The case is explained in the opinion of the court.

This case was brought up from the supreme court of Alabama, by a writ of error issued under the 25th section of the judiciary act. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

This was an appeal .from the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. The’ district court decreed that the collision was caused by the fault, want of precaution, and blamable conduct of the persons on hoard of and managing each of the vessels, and ordered the damages to be borne in equal moieties by them. Both parties appealed to the circuit court.

This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the circuit'. court of the United States, for the District of Columbia, holden in and for the county of Washington. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Mr. Cushing’s points were :— 1. The expenses, incurred by Lieutenant Jones while in France/ on leave of absence, were not chargeable to the United States.

Held: that a voluntary payment to a foreign executor or administrator was a good discharge of the debt. Shultz v. Pulver, 3 Paige, 182; Hooker v. Olmstead, 6 Pick. 481 . This suit is brought in the name of the surviving administrators of Mackey and of the distributees.

This was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States' for the eastern district of Arkansas. It was a sequel to the case ,of Goodloe’s Administrator v. Pintard, decided in this court and reported in 12 How. 24.

This case wa,s brought úp by writ .-of error from the circuit court of the United States for the- eastern district of Louisiana.

. This was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the District of Columbia, holden in and for the county of Washington. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. The arguments consisted chiefly in comments upon the evidence upon both sides, ■and, for, the appellants, in the legal objection that the libel should have been filed in the name of the United States, instead of an individual.

This case was brought up from tfie supreme court of the State of Missouri, by a writ of error issued under the 25th section of the judiciary ¿ct. It is fully stated in the opinion of the court. Mr. Geyer made the following points :— 1. The reservation by the act of March 3,1811, is something morp than “ a direction ” to the officers to refrain from selling the land claimed.

This case was brought up by writ of error from the district court of. the United States for the northern district of California. ' The point of practice involved in it, is stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was brought up by writ of error from the circuit court of the United States for. the district of Missouri. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. The decision of the court being that the case of Guitard et al. v. Stoddard controls this one with respect to the instruction's given by the court below, it is not thought advisable to report the arguments of counsel, which covered the whole case.

■This was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States, for the District of Arkansas; .The case is stated in the opinion of the court. The points made' by Mr. Bryan, which are decided by the court, were the following:— 1. That by the true construction of the act, such a deed is made evidence only of those facts which are recited in it. 2.

This-wás an appeal from, -the ■ circuit Court, of the "United' States for the District of Columbia; hólderi inland for the county of Washington. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. M.r. Bibb made the following points :— 1. That the noté was dated on the 1st of May, 1846, and payable in two years. The trustee had no right to sell until the 1st of May, 1848, whereas he sold on the 21st of, October, 1847. 2.

Held: that as the original location of the tract extended into the river, it entitled those holding under it to the land, on the ground that the principle governing these alluvial accretions gave them to the adjoining owner. In other words, the description in the original grant gave, in legal effect, to the grantee, a water boundary; and if so, the boundary included the accretions.

<p>■ This case came up by writ of error, from the circuit court of the United States for- the district of Missouri.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p> <p>Those of Mr. Crittenden's points, which were included in the decision of the court, were the two following: — ■</p> <p>1. Because the judgments themselves were void,- so far as they related to, or affected the lands, tenements, or hereditaments of the intestate; or, if not, that the executions issued thereon, dated respectively, the 28th of February, and 9th of April, 1821, under or in virtue of which the sheriff sold the land in question, were illegal, null and void, because issued before the expiration of eighteen months from the date (1st of November, 1819,) of the letters of administration of the estate of said intestate, and were therefore issued in direct violation of the express provisions of the before-recited act of the 25th of January, 1817; 8 Met-calf, 502.</p> <p>2. Because the sale, in virtue of which said deed purports to have been executed, was made on the 1st day of May, 1821, and before the" expiration of eighteen months from the date, (1st of .November, 1819,) of the said letters of administration, contrary to' the express terms of the said act of 1817, and was, therefore, illegal and void.</p> <p>The only questionable part of this proposition is, whether the 1st of May, 1821, is a day after the expiration of eighteen months from the 1st of November, 1819, or included in, and part of the period. The reasonable and legal rule of computation of time in such cases, is to exclude the first day, that is, the day of the event or act from which the computation is to be made. It is but the fraction of a day, and the law takes no notice.or account of it. This is believed to be the rule as now settled by judicial discussions in Missouri. Gantly v. Ewing, 3 How. 7.07 Kennon v. Osgood, 19 Mo. É. 60; Blaine v. Beehler, 12 Mo. E. 477.</p> <p>Upon the principal point in the case, Mr. Geyer said</p> <p>The sale was made on the 1st of May, 1821, which was after the expiration of eighteen months, from the death of the intestate, or the date of the letters of administration, (1st of November, 1819,) construing the act of 18l7 according to the rules and principles which have been recognized and applied in analogous cases.</p> <p>It has been laid down in many cases as a general rule, that where time is to be computed from an event or an act, the day of the event or the performance of the act is to be included. Norris v. The Hundred of the Gawthry, Hobart, 139; King v. Adderly, Douglass, 463; Castle v. Burdett, 3 Term R. 623; Glassington-v.' Rawlings, 3 East, 407; Priest v. Tarlton, 3 N. H. Rep. 93; Thomas v. Afflick, 16 Pa. R. 14; Robinet v, Compton, 2 La. An. R. 856; Pierpoint v. Graham, 4 Wash. C. C. Rep. 232; Arnold v. United States, 9 Cranch, 104.</p> <p>In some cases, the rule has been held to be, to exclude the day of the act or event from the computation; in others, the day has been excluded without laying down any general rule. ' King v. Cumberland, 4 Nov. and M. 375; Judd v. Fulton, 10 Bari. Í17; Wing v. Davis, 7 Maine, 31; Ex parte v. Deane, 2 Cowen, 605; Cornell v. Moulton, 3 Denio, 12; Snydor v. Warren, 2 Cowen, 518; S. ,B. Mary Blane v. Beehler, 12 Mo. R. 477; Kimm v. Osgood’s Administrators, 19 Mo. R. 60.</p> <p>But it has been denied that there is any general rule, that the day of the act or event'from which time is to be computed is to be included or excluded, and held that whether it is to be taken inclusive or exclusive, depends upon the reason of the thing, the. context, and .subject-matter. Lester v. Garland, 15 Vesey, Jr., 248; Dowling v. Foxall, 1 Ball & Bealty, 196; Windsor v. China, 4 Maine, 298; Bigelow v.' Wilson, 1 Peck, 485; Presbury v. Williams, 15 Mass. 193; Jones v. Planters’ Bankf5 Humphries, 619; O’ Conner v. Towns, 1 Texas, 107.</p> <p>In the earlier.cases, “from the date” was generally held to be inclusive, and “ from the day of the date,” exclusive, but the doctrine now most generally received is, that there is no difference in the two forms of expression, both meaning the same thing; and in the computation of time on promissory notes and bills of exchange, the day of the date has generally been excluded in other instances, it is held to be inclusive or exclusive, according to the context and subject-matter. Pugh v. Dulce of Leeds, Cowper, 714, and cases there cited and reviewed; Rand ■v. Rand,.4 N. H. 267; Moore v. Bond, 18 Maine, 142; Wilcox v. Wood, 9 Wend. 346.</p> <p>It appears to .have been very generally agreed that either the first or the last day shall be included in the computation, and in no. case are both to be excluded or included, unless the contract or statute upon which the question arises will admit of no other construction. . Ex parte v. Deane, 2 Cow. 605; Thomas v. Affiick, 16 Pa. R. 14; Sander’s Heirs v. Norton, 4 Monroe, 474.</p> <p>Upon a review of the cases, it appears that there is no general rule in computing time from an act done or-an event, or from a date or- the day of the date, that the day is to be inclusive or exclusive; but, according to the adjudged cases, whether the day. in either case is to be included or excluded, depends upon the.'reason.pf the-thing,.the subject-matter, and the context.</p> <p>. But the title óf a bond fide purchaser, at judicial sales, is not affected by any irregularities in the proceedings of the officer, or in the process under which he sold; therefore, if the eighteen months limited by the statute had not expired at the time of the sale, under which the defendants hold, the sheriff’s deed would not, on that account, be void; at most, it would be voidable, and could be impeached only in a- direct proceeding, and not in a collateral action. All that is necessary to support the title of a purchaser in an action of ejectment, is the judgment, execution, levy, and sheriff’s deed. Jackson v. Steinburg, 1 J. C. 153; Jackson v. Bartlett, 8 J. E. 361; Jackson v. Bosevelt, 13 J. B. 97; Same v. Delaney, 13 J. B. 535; Same v. Bobbins, 16 J. B. 537; Brown v. Miller, 3 J. J. Marsh, 439; Lawrence ■ v. Sheed, 2 Bibb, 401; "Webber v. Stith &. Cox, 6 Monroe, 101; Day v. Graham, 1 Gel. (6 HI.) B. 435'; Swigart v. Harber, 4 Scam, 364; Ware v. Bradford, 2 Al. B. 676; 19 do. 132; State Bank v. Noland, 13 Ark. B. 299; Newton v. State Bank, 14 Ark. B. 9; Byers v. Fowler, 12 Ark. 218; Wheaton v. Sexton, 4 Wheat. 506; Hart v. Bector, 7 Mo. B. 531; Eeed v. Heirs of Austin, 9 Mo. B. 722; Landes v. Perkins, 12 Mo. B., 254; Draper v. Bryson, 17 Mo. B. 71; Carson v. Walker, 16 Mo. B. 68 ; Bobinett v. Compton, 2 La. An. B. 856..</p> <p>All the questions now raised were before the court, which was a court of competent jurisdiction, and its acts cannot now be impeached. 1 Baldwin, 246; 1 Serg. & Bawle, 101; 8 Sérg. & Bawle, 397; 2 Pet. 257; 10 Pet. 473; 2 How. 343. .</p>

Little v. Hall, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 165 (1856), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held a contract with state officials to be the official publisher of court opinion documents does not transfer any copyright to that publisher, and they may not seek an injunction against someone else printing those documents.

This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the circuit court of the United States for the district.of Michigan. It is stated in the opinion of the court. Such ofi the points only as were included within the decision of the court will be noticed. ■- The counsel for the plaintiff in error first considered the questions which .arose relative to the act of 23d June, 1836, granting school lands to . Michigan. 1.

This was án appeal from the circuit court of the United States for'the northérn district of New York. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. Mr. Haven made the following points:— l.*Hickox, the.claimant, was the owner of the schooner Freeman. He agreed to sell herto John Holmes for’ $4,500,-payable in five instalments, at various times from June, 1351, to December, 1853.

Held: that the proper construction of the law embraced them as non-residents, whether they were citizens of "Louisiana or of France.. The alleged error is that, if the defendants are citizens of Lou-, isiana, and if the court construed the statute aright, then, the statute is unconstitutional.

These cases were brought up by writ of error from the circuit court of the United States, for the eastern district of Louisiana. The arguments of counsel were so connected with the maps .which were • produced in court, that it would be difficult to present to the reader a clear explanation of them without the map.

Held: “where the. circuit court decreed that the complainants were entitled to two' sevenths of certain property, and referred the matter to-á master *201 in chancery, to take and report an account of it, and then reserved all other- matters in controversy between the parties until the coming in of the master’s report,” was not a final decree on which an appeal could be taken.

Held: that a limitation to the survivor, denotes a definite failure of issue. Richardson v. Noyes, 2 Mass. 56 ; See Ide v.lde et al. 5 Mass. 500 . The case of Parker v. Parker, 5 Met. 134 , cannot be considered as having established a rule of construction which controls this case, for these reasons. 12 Wheat. 153 . 1.

. This case was brought up by writ of error from the circuit court of the United States, for the District of Maryland. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. The instructions given by the circuit court to the jury, and which were excepted to by the plaintiff, were as follows:— And the court directed the jury that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, and their verdict must be for the defendants: ■ 1.

This was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States, for the southern district of New York. The district court decreed that the libellant should recover against the steamboat the sum of $3,875 and costs. The circuit court affirmed this decree, and gave judgment for $4,174 and costs. The arguments upon both sides consisted chiefly in comments upon the evidence.

This was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States, for the southern district of New York. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The points of law upon both sides were so connected with the testimony that they could not be explained without giving an abstract of the evidence.

This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the district court of the United States for the district of Texas. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

to withdraw the writ of error, and discontinue the appeal to this court, to which the case had been brought up, by writ of error, from the supreme court of the Territory of Minnesota. Much matter of general interest was introduced' by both sides into the discussion, which it is not deemed necessary to report, because the decision of the court turned upon a single legal point.

This case was brought up from the high court of errors and appeals of the State of Mississippi, by a writ of error issued under the 25th-section of the judiciary act. Mr. Benjamin moved to dismiss' it for want of jurisdiction, none of the cases provided for in the 25th section being applicable here.

This case was brought up by writ of error from the circuit court of the. United States for the District of Maine; -. The case- is stated in the opinion of the court.1 With respect to the .point that the bill of exceptions was well taken in this case, the counsel for the plaintiff in error.laiddown' the following propositions':; — _ 1.

This was an appeal from the district court of the United States, for the northern District of Iowa. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. Mr. Gittett made nine points. Those which are touched upon in the opinion of the court were the following:— 2. The bill is multifarious, and therefore bad. 1 Dan. Ch. Pr. 384; Cooper’s Eq. PI. 182; Mitford, 146-7; 8 Peters, 123. • 7.

This was an appeal from the district court of the United States, for the district of Wisconsin. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The points made by the counsel were so interwoven with the facts, that they cannot be presented abstractedly.

This was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana. The circumstances of the case are stated in the opinion of the court. ' x- Mr. Stanton contended that the offer to abandon did.not constitute a ratification of the sale by the master, and cited Phillips on Ins. § 1576; Abbott on Shipping, 19; 18 Pickering, 83; Phillips on Ins. § 1497; 2 Peck, 249 ; 5 Pet. 604; 15 Mass. 341; 9 Johns. 21; 1 Caines, 573; 18 Peck, 83.

Den ex dem. Murray v. Hoboken Land & Improv. Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.) 272 (1856), was a case before the United States Supreme Court in which the court held that a distress warrant, issued pursuant to issued by the Solicitor of the Treasury under an act of Congress, was valid and constitutional. It was a use of an Article I tribunal.

■ This - case was brought up by writ of error from the circuit court of the. United States for the District of Columbia, holden in and for the county of Washington. '. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

This was an appeal from the circuit court of, the United States for the southern district of New York. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Mr. Keller made ten points. The first three assailed the validity of Parkhurst’s patent. The others raised the following questions :— 4.

This case was brought up by appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the District of Columbia, holden in and for the county of Washington.

Held: in an action of ejectment, that the lessor of the plaintiff, who had been a party to the judgment, “ was concluded, bound, and estopped, to controvert any thing contained in it.. In Clapp v. Bromagham, 9 Cowen, 537, the court say, “ that the judgment in partition, it is true, does not change the possession, but it establishes the -title, and-in an ejectment must be conclusive.” ' 1 Md.

This was a motion for a writ of habeas corpus, founded oh a petition by Wells, setting forth the following circumstances, viz:— ' That. Wells was convicted of .murder, at the December term; 1851, df the criminal court for the county of Washington, District of.

Held: that the stipulations of. a.treaty between the United States and a 'foreign nation are' paramount to the provisions of the constitution of a particular State of the confederacy. Gordon v. Kerr, 1 Wash. Circuit Ct. Rep.'322.

This ease was brought up from the supreme court of the State of Ohio, by a writ of error, issued under the 25th section of the judiciary act; ■It originated in the court of common pleas in. the county of Hamilton and State of Ohio, and was an action brought by the bank against Debolt', the' nature of which is explained in the fol- ■ lowing agreed case.

This case, like the preceding, was brought up from the supreme court of the State of Ohio, by a writ of error, issued under the 25th section of the judiciary act. . It originated in the coart of common pleas for. Hamilton, county, and contained an agreed statement of facts similar to that in the preceding ease, with the following exceptions, after stating the profits of the bank as follows, namely: — Profits. Tax under § 60.

. This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the circuit court of the United States for the western district of Pennsylvania. • It was an ejectment brought by the Allens, who were aliens and-subjects of the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, to recover four undivided fifth parts of one undivided half of a lot in Pittsburg. They were heirs of Michael Allen, and the question was, whether Allen, the testator, had devised the property in question by his will.

1 This case was brought up by writ of error from the circuit court of the United States for the District of Columbia, holden in and for the county of,'Washington. The counsel for the defendant in error moved to dismiss the writ of error under the following circumstances:— An action of ejectment was brought by Peugh’s lessee to recover the eastern half part of lot number seven, in the square or reservation marked B in the city of Washington.

This case came up by writ of error from the circuit court of the United States for the District of 'Maryland, having been tried in that court by the late Judge Glenn, district judge.

This case was brought up, by a writ of error, from the circuit court of the United States for the district -of Indiana. In 1836, the' legislature of Indiana chartered the Lafayette Insurance Company with the usual powers of a company to insure against losses by fire. . Their principal office or place of business was at Lafayette, in Indiana, but they also had an office at Cincinnati, in the county of' Hamilton and State of Ohio.

This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the circuit court of the United States for, the district of Missouri. The case is stated in the opinion of .the court. Mr Lawrence made the following points, namely: — ■'. This survey was entirely erroneous, as plaintiff claims and offered to show, for reasons; 1. Thjt the location was such that it did not include the possession ás required by the commissioners’ certificate. 2.

This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court. It is only necessary to add the protest and evidence offered as they were stated in the bill of exceptions, namely:— “ I this day pay to Philip Greely, jr., collector of this port, on behalf of Messrs.

This was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana. A full history of the transactions which led to the dispute, is given in the report of the-case of Stockton v. Ford, 11 How. 232. The arguments were so connected with the facts of the case, that it is impossible to give the points by-themselves.

Held: in the case of Green et al. v. Biddle, 2 Wheat. *433 1 , that an act of the legislature of Kentucky in contravention of the compact was null and void, within the'provision of the constitution forbidding a State to pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts. But that is not the question here.

This was a case of original jurisdiction upon the equity side of this court, and was a sequel to the preceding case between the same parties. Mr. Charles W. Russell, as the solicitor for the Bridge Company, filed a petition praying leave to file a bill of review of an order of this.court, made at the December term, 1851, respecting the costs, in the original case between the parties.

This was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court. The district court held that both boats were in fault, and divided the damages, and ordered judgment to be entered against ■The Magnolia for $17,900. From this decision both parties appealed to the circuit court, where the judgment of the district court was reversed, and the libel dismissed with costs.

This was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Illinois. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. The argument turned chiefly upon the point, whether Foster and Stohl, who held the deed, and Hooper and Campbell, who held the note, were real or nominal parties in the cause.

Held: under titles derived from the instituted heir. This evidence disposes of the allegations of the bill, except those which impugn the sufficiency of the act as a legal instrument. That question, in our opinion, is closed by the decree of the alcalde. That decree declares the will to be valid and subsisting, and directs its execution.

Held: that when the boundaries of a confirmed claim are vague and uncertain, and are to be fixed by the operations of the surveying department, or such confirmation is' only the recognition of a preexisting right or claim, and before the survey and location the government sells a part of the land not necessarily embraced within the tract' confirmed, the title of the purchaser will prevail.’ Let us test the title of the…

These two cases will be reported together, although in some respects they were ■ dissimilar. In both, however, writs of er-, ror had been issued by this court directed to the supreme court of Wisconsin. In the first case, viz: The United States v. Booth, the writ was not returned, and Mr. Cushing, (attorney-general,) filed a copy of the record and moved the court to docket the case, and set it down for argument at the next term.

<p>In error to the supreme court of ' the State of Wisconsin.</p>

This was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Mississippi. The transaction to which the suit relates was partly and incidentally brought before the notice of this court in 16 How. 106. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Virginia. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court. Upon the trial in the circuit court, the counsel for the plaintiffs (the Barredas) and defendants offered several prayers to the court as instructions to the jury, which the court declined to grant, and instructed the jury as follows:— “ 1.

This was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States, for the eastern-district of Louisiana. It was . a bill filed by Madame Emilie Poultney, in her lifetime, against the city of New Orleans, and about eight- hundred and fifty other parties, some of whom included a number of persons, such, as the Presbyterian Church, Bank of the United States, &c. &c. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This was an appeal from the district court of the United States for the northern district of Missisippi. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This 'was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern.district of Louisiana The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court. Mr. Henderson made the following points :— 1, That the decree validates a void purchase qf a litigious right. 2. That the complainant’s alleged title, was void by the Louisiana statute of champerty. 3. That no loan of money and no resulting trust is shown. 4.

This case was brought up' from the supreme court of the' State of Michigan, by a writ of error issued under the 25th •section of the judiciary act. The facts are fully set forth in the opinion of the court.

This case came up, by writ of error, from the circuit court 6f the United States for the southern district of Mississippi. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case came, up, on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the circuit court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Mr. Griswold)s first and fourth points were as follows:— 1.

These two cases were appeals from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Virginia. Being exactly alike, it will only be necessary to state the first.

These were appeals from the district court of the United States for the northern district of California'. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

This was an appeal from the district court of the United States for the northern district of California. The nature of the claim is stated in the opinion of the court. The decree of the district court was as follows :— This cause came on to be heard at the above-stated court, on the transcript and evidence and the arguments of counsel for the United States, and for the claimant Cruz Cervantes being.

This was an appeal from the district court of the United States for the northern district of California. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Held: after the fullest consideration, that, even in cases where the condition is contained in the grant, the non-compliance‘with its terms will not necessarily have the effect to avoid the title. Circumstances may excuse the omission. *564 Upon the whole, we are satisfied that the judgment of the court below was right, and should be affirmed. Mr. Justice DANIEL and-Mr. Justice CAMPBELL, dis-. sented.

This case came up from the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Alabama, upon a certificate of division in opinion between the judges thereof. The case was before the court at the preceding term, and is reported in 17 How. 606. The certificate of division commenced as follows, namely:— Certificate of Division of Opinion. Circuit Court of the U. S., Southern Dist. of Ala. A. Dennistoun and Co. *• James Reid and Cq.

These were appeals from the'.«circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Alabama.

This case came up from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Indiana, upon a certificate of division in opinion between the judges thereof. As the record was very short, it is thought proper to insert the whole of it.

These two cases were appeals from tire circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York.. In the first case, the libellants were owners of the schooner Hero, of Maine, and in the second case, Lord was the owher of a cargo of corn and flour laden on board of The Hero, bound from New York to Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The circumstances of the collision are set forth in the opinion of the court.

<p>This was an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana.</p> <p>The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

This casé came up from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky, on* a certificate of division in opinion between the judges thereof. The point of difference was thus stated.. Statement of point of disagreement. The statement of the point upon which the disagreement of the judges happened having been made, is in these words :— Question of difference.

This case was brought up from the supreme court of Louisiana, by a writ of error issued. under the 25th section of the judiciary act. '- ' The case is stated, in the opinion of the court.

■ This case was brought up by writ of error for the circuit court of the United States for the district of Michigan. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.