Volume 64 — United States Reports

This was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the northern .district- of Georgia. A motion was made by Mr. Phillips, on behalf of the appellees, to dismiss the appeal, upon the ground that no 'appeal bond was given at the time of grantiiig the appeal, as required by the statute, either as a security, for costs or supersedeas, of. execution.

This case was brought up by .writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the northern district of California. The history of the trial in the court below is fully set forth in the opinion of this court.

Held: that the parties had a right to make such agreement, as between themselves, and that it was also good as to third parties, who were intervening encumbrancers, if the amount of the mortgage encum'branee were not thereby increased beyond the amount which the mortgage was intended to secure. 5 Binney, 589. This doctrine would seem to dispose of the objection we are now considering.

This was au appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States, for the district of Massachusetts. It was the case of a libel filed in the District Court by Goddard & Pritchard, against the. barque Tangier, for the non-delivery of- bertain bales of cotton shipped at the port of Apalachicola. The barque arrived'at Boston, and the cotton was lost' under the circumstances, mentioned in the opinion of the court.

This case was brought up by writ of error from the District Court of the United States for the eastern district of Texas.

This case was brought up by writ of error from the Circuí! Court of the United States for the district of Maryland.

This case was brought up by writ.of error from the District Court of the United States for the district of Iowa. In order that the reader may the more readily understand the question involved, he is requested to make a quasi map for himself according to the following directions: Take a page of paper, upon the eastern and western sides of which draw two lines from north to south, the former representing the Alississippi and the latter the Missouri rivers.

Held: that “the. Probate Court has not jurisdiction which will enable, it to proceed against the sureties in an administrator’s bond,, on-a plenaiy..proceeding by bill.

This was an appeal from the' Circuit Court of the United ■. States for the southern district of Mississippi. It was a bill filed by Robert Hi Cage, in his lifetime, to stay execution on a forthcoming bond-under the circumstances stated in the opinion of the court. .

This was. an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the northern district of Ohio. The bill was filed in the Circuit Court by Coe, mortgagee of the road of the railroad company in trust, for securing the payment of its bonds, to' enjoin the execution of a judgment recovered at law against the company by Pennock and Hart, two of .the defendants. The facts of the case 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 district of Maryland. It was an action of assumpsit brought by Charles Flowers and Alice Flowers, of Louisiana, claiming to be heirs and universal legatees of Charles Mulhollan, against Foreman, surviving partner of Keller & Foreman.

Held: discharged, because the loan was made for a larger sum than the one specified. In 17 Wendell, 179, the surety was held not to be liable for two reasons: first, that the credit was given to a larger amount than the one specified in the agreement; and second, that it was given for a longer time. This was a decision by the Supreme Court of the State of New York, when it was composed of Judges Nelson, Bronson, and Cowen.

This was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district of New York. Parsons and the other appellees were the owners of the ship Hemisphere, and a charter-party was executed between their agents and Ogden, the terms of which, together with the other facts of the case, are summarily stated in the opinion of the court. The libel was filed in the District Court, praying for a writ with a clause of foreign attachment.

This case came up from the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district of New York, upon a certificate of division in opinion between the judges thereof. • It was an action of assumpsit on the money counts brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant as collector. Upon the .trial, the division in opinion between the judges occurred, which, is stated in the opinion of the court.

Held: in Sowell v. Champion, 6 Ad. and Ellis, 415, that the application to a judge in the course of a cause, to direct- a verdict for one or more defendants in trespass, is addressed to his discretion, and that the discretion was to be regulated, not merely by the fact that, at the close of the plaintiff’s ease, no evidence appears to affect them, but by the probabilities whether any such will arise before the whole…

Held: that if a widow remains in possession of land after her husband’s death; and marries again, and she and- her husband continue in possession for more, than the time limited for the right of entry, neither she nor he can set, up the statute against an ejectment by the children of the first husband. [Cook v. Nicholas, 2 Watts and S., 27.] There, was a very rigid application of the law, in this respect, in .a very…

<p>The jurisdiction of courts of admiralty in torts depends entirely on localit’ , and this court have heretofore decided that it extends to places within the & dy of a county. The term “torts” includes wrongs suffered in consequence of the negligence or malfeasance of others, where the remedy at' common law is by an action on the case.</p> <p>Hence, where a railroad company employed contractors to build a bridge, and for that purpose to drive piles in a river, and, owing to the abandonment of the contract, the piles were left in the river, in such a condition as to injure a vessel when sailing on her course, the railroad company were responsible for the injury.</p> <p>That the vessel so injured was prosecuting her voyage on Sunday, is no defence for the railroad company. The statute of Maryland and the cases upon this, point examined.</p> <p>Where there was conflicting testimony in the court below upon the amount of damages sustained, and there was evidence to sustain the decree, this court will not reverse the decree merely upon a doubt created by conflicting testimony.</p>

Held: that whenever anything was done under a special contract not in conformity with it, the party for whom it was done was obliged to pay the stipulated price; but that he might resort to a cross-action, to izidemnify hiznself for the deficiency izz the consideration. Blair v. Davis, 1794, cited in 7 East., 470.

Held: although, there being no courts of chancery in Pennsylvania, the State courts allow a recovery in ejectment on an equitable title.

This ivas an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the northern district of California. The petition was filed by Charles White, claiming under Manuel Ortega, who gave in evidence the following documents of title, viz: 1. June 12, 1840. A petition of Ortega to the Governor • Alvarado for a grant of land called Arroyo de San Antonio, describing its boundaries. 2. June 20, 1840.

This was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the northern district of California.

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

This was au appeal from the District Court of the United States for the northern district of California. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

This was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Maryland, sitting in admiralty. It was a ease of collision occurring in the Chesapeake bay, between the steamer Louisiana and the schooner William K. Perrin, by which the schooner was sunk. The libel was in rem, filed by the appellants against the steamer, and George W. Russell, master thereof. The Baltimore Steam Packet Company intervened and answered as the owner of the steamer.

This was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Indiana. A motion was made by Albert G. Porter, as amicus curias, to dismiss the appeal, because the appeal was taken by part only of the complainants below, and that the other complainants, have not been made and are not parties to said appeal. The authorities cited were the following: A writ of error was brought by Mary Deneale and others, as plaintiffs.

This was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the northern district of California. It was a claim for an island in the Sacramento river, in Cal - ifornia. ' The case is 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 case is stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was brought up by writ of error from the District Court of the United States for the western district of Arkansas

This was an appeal from the District Court of the TJnited States for the northern district of California. The nature of the claim is stated in the opinion of the court.

This was au appeal from the District Court of the United States for the southern district of California. It was docketed and dismissed at the preceding term of the court, under the circumstances which will presently be briefly stated. The attention of the court was now called to the case by the following motions, namely: 1. A motion by the Attorney General, to vacate the order dismissing the cause, and to recall the mandate. 2.

This, was an appeal from tbe District Court of tbe United States for tbe northern district of California. Tbe circumstances of tbe case are fully stated in tbe opinion of tbe court.

This ease was brought up by writ of error from the Circuit Court of the Uoited States for the districts of California. It was an ejectment brought by Adams and Grimes, citizens of Massachusetts, against De Cook and Norris, to recover, a rancho in California. The amended complaint- reduced the parties to Adams, plaintiff, against Norris,'defendant. Adams claimed, as representing the heirs at law of one Eliab Gi’imes, and Norris under a codicil to the will of Grimes.

Held: that want of presentment and demand was excused, because the place of business was open, but no one had been left there to answer; the court expressly stating that if it had been closed, further diligence would have been necessaiy.

prefixed to this report, how many points were raised in the argument and decided b}? the court. The examination, of the laws of Ohio was very extensive ; too much so to be followed by the reporter. All that he can do is to state the points made, from which the line of argument can be easily deduced. Mr. Otis said: The record presents the following questions for the decision, of the court: • *383 I. Had the directors of the Cleveland,.

This case was brought up by writ of error from the .Circuit , Court of the United States for the district of Maryland. 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 district of Maryland. It was entirely similar to the preceding case; except that it was contended that the insui’ance company had waived the right of fixing the premium by the conduct of the agent and correspondence between the parties.,

This case was brought up by writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United' States for the southern district of New York.- Bliven was of Westchester county, aud Mead of Brooklyn, in the State of New York, and the New England Screw Company were a corporation created by Rhode Island.- The suit was brought by Bliven & Mead in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, and removed by the defendants into the Circuit Court of the United States.

This case was brought up by writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district of New York. It was the case mentioned in the preceding report, as the one in which the screw company sued Bliven & Mead for the articles which had been furnished; and in which the defence was, that the amount contracted for had not been supplied, and consequently the contract had been broken. See the report of the preceding case.

This was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the northern district of California. Minturn filed his bill against the defendants, claiming a right, under the authorities of the town of .Oakland, to establish a ferry, exclusively, between the city of San Francisco and the city of Oakland. The bill prayed for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from running the steamboat San Antonio or any other steamboat or vessel between the two places.

This was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

This case was brought up by writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United- States for the southern district of Mississippi. . The nature of the suit and the various defences made are stated in thé opinion of the court.

, and need not be repeated. It was admitted upon the record that Pink was a naturalized citizen of the United States at the time of his death, and residing in the city, of New Orleans; also, that the legatees reside in the Kingdom of Wurtemberg, and are subjects of the King of Wurtemberg. ■The Supreme Court of Louisiana decided in favor of the validity of the tax, and the legatees brought the case up to this court.

Held: that a vessel in advance is not bound to give way, or to give facilities to a vessel in her rear, to enable such vessel to pass; but that the vessel ahead is bound to refrain from any manoeuvres calculated to embarrass the latter vessel while attempting to accomplish that object. Similar views had previously been announced by the same learned judge, in the case of the steamboat Rhode Island, decided in 1847.

This case was brought up by writ of error from the District Court of the United- States for the district of Wisconsin. The case 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 Indiana.' It was an ejectment brought by Mann, a citizen of New York, and- Hannah, a citizen of Iowa, against Wilson, to recover sections nine and ten, in township 35, range 4 west, in the county of Baporte, in Indiana.

This was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the southern district of California. The case is stated in the opinion of the. court

<p>This case was brought up by writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the eastern district of Arkansas.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

These two cases were appeals from the .District Court of the United States for the northern district of California. . . The cases are stated in the opinion of the court.

This was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Columbia. 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 southern district of New York. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case .was brought up by writ of error from the District Court of the United States for the western district of Texas. The facts and history of the case 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 southern district of New York.- The ease 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.

Held: in eases coming up by appeal from the District Courts of Missouri and Florida, which adjudicated Spanish claims under the act of 1824, that the petition to the Governor for land and his concession must be taken’ as one act, and the decree usually proceeded on the petition, which described the land as respected locality and quantity.

This was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the northern district of California. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

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.

<p>This was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the northern district of Iowa.</p> <p>It arose out of the same circumstances nearly as the preceding case, ás will be evident from the statement in the opinion of the court.</p>

State of Alabama v. State of Georgia, 64 U.S. (23 How.) 505 (1860), is a unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the true border between the states of Alabama and Georgia was the average water mark on the western bank of the Chattahoochee River. In coming to its conclusion, the Court defined what constituted the bed and bank of a river. The case has had international repercussions as well. The Supreme Court's definition was adopted by courts in the United Kingdom in the case Hindson v. Ashby (1896) 65 LJ Ch. 515, 2 Ch. 27.

Held: at which this grant was confirmed, but of which no minute had been taken. Passing over the strange fact, that in such case this would be the only grant ever presented at an extraordinary session, and that all grants made about its date were presented at subsequent oi’dinary sessions, the effort fails entirely.