Volume 66 — United States Reports

This case came before the Supreme Court upon a writ of error to' the District Court of the United States for the district of Wisconsin. It was, in its origin, an action of trespass on the case brought by II. Norton Strong and William II. Goodnowagainst Achas P. Dutton and Cyrus Hines. In 1855, Messrs.

This case came up on appeal from the decree of the District Court of the United States for the northern district of California, being a private land claim, prosecuted by the appellee under the act of Congress passed March 3, 1851.

<p>1. Where á writ of error, is taken to the í>istrict Court, but no citation served on the defendant in error agreeably to the act of 1789, the writ will, on motion', be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.</p> <p>2. A service of the citation on the attorney or counsel of the defendant in error is sufficient!</p> <p>3. But where the attorney of record is dead, it will not do to serve it on ' _ ’. his executrix or other personal representative.</p> <p>4. -Nor eán the service be legally made on another member of the bar ¿who'had been' a partner of the-deeéased counsel.</p> <p>5. --The-'courts cannot notice’law partnerships’or .other private arrange- ' -.' -merits, and counsel cannot' be known as such, unless by their ap- . pearance on the record."</p>

Held: that the former are liable only to information or indictment. Mower vs. Leicester, ( 9 Mass., 947 ;) Young vs. Comm’s of Roads, (2 Nott and M. C., 555; Com. Dig., Chemin, H. 4, B. 3;) Bartlett vs. Crozier, ( 17 John., 439 ;) Mowry vs. The Town, of Newfane, (1 Bar. S. C., 645;) White vs. City Council, (2 Hill’s So.

' Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Indiana. Beers filed his bill in the Circuit Court, averring inter alia that the defendants, as trustees of the Wabash an I Erie canal, had certain moneys in their hands, arising from the sales of land and from tolls on the canal; that he, the complainant, had a lien on the proceeds of the land and upon the tolls, of which lien the defendants had notice, but refused to satisfy it.

"Writ of error to-the District Court of the United States foe tbe district of Iowa. The United States brought debt against LysanderW. Babbit and his sureties on his official bond as register of the land office at Kanesville, Iowa. Babbit was commissioned on the 6th of April, 1853; áñd held his office until the 20th of October, 1856, to which time his accounts were adjusted by, the accounting officers of the treasur}7, showing a balance against him of $9,816 24.

Patrick E. Brady filed his libel' against the steamer New Philadelphia,, her tackle, apparel, and furniture, in the District Court of the United States for the southern district of New York, in a case of collision, civil and maritime, alleging that he, the libellant, was owner, of the coal barge Owen Gorman, which was taken by the New Philadelphia to be towed to and left at a certain place in New York harbor; but, owing to the. unskilfulness With which the steamer was…

Held: that the evidence entirely failed to establish the allegations of fraud, and dismissed the bill. It is now here on appeal. The case is a very plain one; and we need only say, that the court, upon the pleadings and proofs, could come to no other conclusion. Decree of the Circuit Court affirmed.

John D. Hager brought his bill in the Circuit Court for the district of New Jersey against John R. Thomson, Edwin-A. Stevens, James Neilson, and the said John R. Thomson, Edwin A. Stevens, James Neilson, Robert P. Stockton and Richard Stockton, trustees of the New Brunswick Steamboat and Canal Transportation Company.

This was covenant brought in the Circuit Court for the southern district of New York. While the cause was-pending there, it was referred by consent. The referee found for the plaintiff. The court entered judgment on the award, and the defendant below took this writ of error. The defendant in error (plaintiff below) moved to dismiss the writ of error, and affirm the judgment.

Charles Si Wallach brought replevin in the Circuit' Court for the District of Columbia against Ann R. Dermott. In his declaration the plaintiff averred that' certain articles of household furniture were taken by the defendant and detained against sureties and pledges.

James O’Brien, the defendant below, on the 18th of September, 1858, drew his check on Chubb & Bro. for $1,150, and passed it to the Bank of the Metropolis in part payment of a debt which he owed there, and which was due that day. The drawee’s place of business was in the same street with the Bank of the Metropolis, and only eighty feet distant.

Writ of error to the District Court of the United States for the northern district of Illinois. Solomon Davis and Joseph Barton brought trover in the Circuit Court of the United States for the northern district of Illinois, against Edmund GL Stiles, for twelve boxes, one trunk, and one bale containing dry goods, of the value of four thousand dollars.

Held: that the rights of the ship-owners to the freight, payable by the consignees, and their lien for it upon the goods, depended entirely on the contract expressed in the bills of lading, and not upon anything contained in the charter'party. 2.

Cross-appeal, from the decree of the District Court of the United. States for the district of Indiana. Nathaniel B. Hogg brought his bill in the Circuit Court against Benjamin Ruffner and several other defendants, who were collaterally interested.

This was a libel for salvage by H, B.;Cromwell and others, owners of the steamer Western port, against the barque Island City. The libel was filed in the District Court of the United States for Massachusetts, and was removed into the Circuit Court on the certificate of the district judge that he was in terested. In January, 1857, the Island City, on her voyage from Galveston to Boston, made Cape Cod in a snow-storm.

Held: that he was a settler and housekeeper on the land of which he claimed pre-emption. . 2. But the right of pre-emption did not depend on actual residence and housekeeping in the case of' a person whose elaim under a Spanish or French grant was still undetermined. 3.

<p>1. A surety in the bond of a public officer is entitled to credit for all payments made by his principal during the time he remained in office, and is chargeable only with the moneys received by him during the same time.</p> <p>2. The naked facts that an officer, having public money in his hands, drew on the Government while he was in office for a further sum to pay certain debts and expenses, which draft was met after he went out of office by a requisition on the Treasury in favor of the payee, and that the officer in the mean time paid the debts and expenses mentioned by him, will not authorize a charge against the surety of the sum drawn for, nor'deprive him of his right to a credit for the debts and expenses so paid.</p> <p>8 In an action against the surety in such a- case, it is necessary for the United States to prove that the money was actually paid out of the Treasury and came to the hands of the officer during his term of service, and those facts will not be inferred from the draft, the requisition and the Treasury warrant.</p> <p>4. A transfer of moneys by the Government to an agent of the officer does not affect the liability of the surety as a transfer to the officer himself.</p> <p>5. The fidelity or responsibility of the agent through whom tlie'Government sees fit to transfer public m'oney is not within the obligation assumed by the surety.</p> <p>6. Where the evidence shows a state of facts from which the inference is not deducible that the officer received the money sought to be charged against his surety, it is error to leave the cause to the jury upon the hypothesis that he did receive it.</p>

Held: in the case of Bryan vs. Forsyth, ( 19 How., 334 ,) for the reasons there given, that the patent of the fractional quarter, section- to Ballance, though subject to the saving clause mentioned, afforded ground in favor of persons claiming under'it of an adverse possession within the statute of limitation of Illinois, against the French lots, after the sur *153 vey and designation of them in 1840.

These suits were brought in the District Court for the southern district of New York. They were cross-libels in personam on the same maritime contract, and the evidence was identical in both cases. Nelson and his. associates were the owners of the ship Maid of Orleans, on board of which a cargo of lard in barrels and tierces was shipped at New Orleans for New York in .July, 1854, consigned to Woodruff & Co., at New York.

This was a libel in the Circuit Court of tbe United States for the southern district of New York, filed by John S. Lawrence against the brig Lieutenant Admiral Collenberg, for damages suffered by a cargo of fruit shipped at Palermo for New York and injured by decay on the voyage. The owners of the vessel denied the right of the consignee of the cargo to recover the damages he claimed, and filed a cross-libel for freight, primage, general and particular average.

Held: but gave no directions how the land should be laid off; and the matter having been brought to the consideration of Secretary McClelland, he adjudged, and properly, that Eector’s survey and Brown’s remarking of it concluded the Government, and bound the corporation of Caroiidelet to the whole extent of the survey.

Leslie Combs brought his bill in the Circuit Court against John L: Hodge, administrator of Andrew Hodge, deceased, William L. Hodge, and James Love, -complaining that Love, having in his hands certain bonds of the Republic of Texas which.belonged to the plaintiff, sold and transferred them 'for his own benefit, and without authority or consent of the plaintiff, and that he, the plaintiff* had .since learned that they were in'-possession of and claimed by the other,…

Held: that the power to survey and fix definite boundaries, and issue a patent for Brazeau’s tract, was a sovereign power, reserved to the executive branch of the Government, and that a court of justice had no jurisdiction to locate the claim. West vs. Cochran, (17 How.) The unsuccessful party then filed his bill in a State Circuit.

.Writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the northern district of Illinois.

Held: that he should be permitted to do so. The plaintiff in error then proposed to prove by him where, at a certain time, “the actdal waterline eást of or upon water lot 34 was, in reference to the east line of said lot 34;” * * “which the court refused, on the ground that it should have been introduced, as evidence in chief, not as rebutting.” That this evidence was of the former and not of the latter character, seems…

. This w.as an appeal by the United States from the decree of the District Court for the northern'district of California. The appellee (Morehearl)-was administrator of Win. Knight, and in that character he.presented Bis petition on the 3d day of March,-185.2, to the board of commissioners for the investigation of private land claims, agreeably to the act of Congress passed March 3,-1851.

Held: that the value of the interest conveyed to the trustees for the ultimate use of the daughter must be ascertained by the conversion of the property into money or its equivalent, and such conversion is a condition precedent to the obligation of the father'to secure a like sum to the daughtér. 3.

Writ of error to tbe Supreme Court of the State of Massachusetts.

Appeal (from the District Court of the.United States for the northern district of California. This was a claim for a tract of land lying near to the mission of San Luis Obispo, containing 300,000 square varas, or about fifty acres, of land,- and éálled La Huerta de Romualdo. The claim was based on a grant to one Romualdo, an Indian, by Pio Pico, dated on the 10th of July, Í846.

In May, 1857, the plaintiff in. error, Pratt, filed his libel in the District Court of the United States for the northern district of New York against the propellfer Kentucky, her boats, &c., to recover damages caused by a collision with a vessel owned by him on Lake Erie.

Erroi to the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district of Ohio. The plaintiff in error, who was also plaintiff below, filed a declaration in ease against defendants in error, fpr the infringement of letters patent of the United States, granted to him November 30, 1852, for an improvement in grain separators. This declaration was -filed March 22d, 1859.

This was.a claim for a tract-of land in Sonoma county, California, two leagues and a half in length by a quarter of a league in width, and called Agua Calimte. M. G. Yallejo filed his petition before the Land Commission claiming the tract above described under a deed from Lazaro Piña, to whom it had been granted in 1840 by Governor Alvarado.

Held: that to aver the company to be “a body corporate in the *292 State .of Maryland; by a law of the General Assembly of Maryland,” was sufficient.

Tlxe appellee in this case claimed under the title of José Castro, which was rejected by the Supreme Court at Decernher term, 1860, (24 How., 347.) Neleigh and one McKenzie purchased from Castro in 1849 six of rbe eleven leagues covered by his title, “to be selected whenever the same shall be located by the proper authority.” McKenzie died soon after the purchase, and Neleigh, by a conveyance from his widow, under a power in his will, became possessed of his interest in the…

Tesson & Dangen recovered a judgment against Bonteum and Carrey in the Circuit Court of Peoria county, Illinois, on the 12th'of September, 1857, for $8,000. On the same day an execution was issued directed to Woodford county, and a levy was soon after made on real and personal property.

James P. Harkness and Mana his wife brought their bill in the Circuit Court of the United States for the northern district of Illinois,. against Isaac Underhill, to compel the defendant to convey to Maria Harkness the west'half of the east half of the southeast quarter of section 4 in township 8, range 8, east of the 4th principal meridian, in Peoria county," Illinois. •' The -material facts set forth in the bill are these : Isaac Waters, the father of Maria Harkness,…

Waltfer Laflin filed bis bill in -tbe Circuit Court of tbe United States for tbe northern district of Illinois, against the widow and heirs of.

Charles Covilland, José-Manuel Ramirez, William H. Sampson, administrator of John Sampson, Charles B. Sampson, Robert B. Buchanan, and Gabriel N. Súezy, presented their petition to the Board of Land Commissioners, at San Francisco, on the 31st of May, 1852, claiming to be confirmed in tbeir title to two tracts of land lying on the Yuba and the Feather rivers.

Gustave Touchard, a subject of the French Emperor, brought ejectment in the Circuit Court for the northern district of California, against James Singleton and seventeen others, for a tract of land situate in the county of Santa Clara, California, being a portion of what is known as Yerba Buena rancho.

Writ of error to tbe District Court of the United States for the district of Iowa. y ■’ The case is fully stated in the .opinion of the court. ■

Held: that the reservation created an equitable interest to the land to be selected under the treaty; that it was the subject of sale and conveyance; that Pet-chi-co-was competent to convey it; and that his deed, upon the selection of the land and the issue of the patent, operated'to vest the title in his grantee.

Held: and we have no doubt correctly, that it was a present grant, and that the Legislature was vested with full power *382 to select and locate the land; but the case is so unlike the present, that.we do not think it necessary to waste words in pointing 'out the distinction.

This was an action of debt brought in the Circuit;Court of the United States for the western district of Pennsylvania, by Alexander GL Woods,' á /citizen of New York, against the •county of Lawrence, in the State of-.Pennsylvania, to recover the agiount of certain coupons for interest on bonds given by tbe defendant, to the Northwestern Railroad Company. The defendant denied its obligation to pay the coupons or the bonds. .

the district of Massachusetts. In admiralty. Hugh N. Camp, Edward W. Brunsen, and Charles Sherry, partners, doing business in New York city, under the firm of Camp,.Brunsen & Sherry, filed their libel in the District Court for Massachusetts, against the ship Marcellus, of Boston, her tackle, apparel and furniture, alleging that they were the owners of one hundred and seventy boxes and forty hogsheads of sugar, worl;h ten thousand dollars, laden oh board the schoouer Empire,…

This was ah appeal by the defendant from the District Court of the United States for the district of Wisconsin. Newcombe Cleveland, of Illinois, brought his bill in equity in the District Court against the La Crosse and Milwaukie. Railroad Company, Byron Kilbourn, Moses Kneeland, James'Lúddington,- D. C. Ereeman, Charles D.

This suit was commenced in the Circuit Court at "Cincinnati, December term, 1859, by Vance against Campbell, Ellison, and "Woodrow. Judgment for defendants. Writ of error sued,out by plaintiff. The question argued here and the material fact's bearing upon it are fully discussed in the opinion of .the court.

Held: that if evidence were illegally admitted, the court could not inquire into its weight or importance, but would reverse the judgment; and we suppose the converse of this proposition is equally true, and if evidence be illegally rejected, this court will not inquire into its importance, but will reverse the judgment. Mr. Lincoln, of Ohio, for defendant in error.

Writ of error to tbo Supreme Court of Ohio. The Jefferson branch of the State Bank of Ohio brought trespass in the Common Pleas of Jefferson county against Alexander Skelly, and chargedin their declaration that the defendant took and carried away from the banking-house of the plaintiff, at Steubenville, a certain quantity of gold coin of the value of seven thousand dollars, and converted it to his own use.

. Writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the northern district of Illinois.

VTrit of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the northern district of Illinois. Hamilton- McCool brought ejectment in the Circuit Court against Spencer Smith for the northeast quarter of section eleven, in township 10 north, qf range 1 west, of the fourth principal meridian.

Held: that this case is not within the clause of the 25th section of the judiciary act, which confers jurisdiction upon this court to re-examine judgments or decrees of State courts adverse to “ an authority exercised under the United States.” 2.

Held: that the 60th section was a contract, and that the various State laws, which attempted to change the rule of taxation fixed by such contract, were void; We affirm again the unconstitutionality of the law of Ohio tinder which the. tax wás assessed and levied against the Franklin Bank, and direct the reversal of the judgment of the Supreme Court of the State óf Ohio now before us by a writ of error.

■ This was assumpsit brought in' March, 1858, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Michigan, by E. B. Leonard and C. P. Ives, citizens of the.

United States v. Jackalow, 66 U.S. (1 Black) 484 (1862), is a U.S. Supreme Court case interpreting the Venue and Vicinage clauses of the United States Constitution. It was an "unusual criminal case" and one of the few constitutional criminal cases from the Taney Court. Jackalow, a mariner from the Ryukyu Kingdom, was suspected of the robbery and murder of the captain of the sloop Spray, Jonathan Leete, and Jonathan's brother Elijah, while the ship was at sea. He was convicted of robbery in the Long Island Sound, but as there was disagreement over the question of jurisdiction between the two judges who heard the post-trial motion (Judge Mahlon Dickerson and Supreme Court Justice Robert Cooper Grier), the case was referred to the Supreme Court by certificate of division.

This cause (a California land claim brought here on appeal by the United States from the decree of the District Court) was reached on the docket at the present term, was called in its regular order, and was argued by counsel on both sides; the opinion of the court upon it was delivered, and a decree pronounced, that the decree of the District Court be reversed and. the cause remanded, with directions to dismiss the petition of the claimant.

This was an admiralty suit in personam, commenced by the libel of Andrew Elanigan, John S. Beacham, George P. Beach-am, Lenox Beacham, and Samuel Beacham, partners trading as A. Elanigan & Co., against Robert Turner, owner of the steamboat Susquehannah, in the District Court of the United States for the district of Maryland.

Held: that the Circuit .Court,was right in modifying the decrees of the District Court, so as to give to the owner of the ship the amount of his freight and the consignees the whole sum due them as damages. 2. The claimant of the vessel has no right to complain here of such change in the decree, because it benefited him by giving him the costs of his suit. 3.

. Thomas B. Valentine, for himself and other parties in interest, presented his petition to the Supreme Court setting forth that he held the title of Juan Miranda, to whom a-grant was made by the Mexican Government of a tract of land in California known by the name of the Arroyo de San Antonio; that one Ellen E. White, administratrix of Charles White, deceased-, petitioned the Land Commission- for confirmation to herself of another title derived from Manuel Ortega for the…

This was an application.'by Nathan iel'Gordon for án alterna-tive writ .of prohibition to the judges of the Circuit Court-of the Ubi ted States for the southern district of New York, and its officers, and .the United States marshal, to-restrain them from further' proceeding in a- case wherein . the. said Gordon had been found guilty of piracy and sentenced to death;-' arid also for a writ of certiorari commanding the judges to send up the.papers, process, and all proceedings…

Cross appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts.- The. fa_c.ts, pleadings, and points of this case are so fully stated by Mr. Justice Swayne, that any other report of them cannot be made without, repeating what he has said- in his opinion.

This was a writ of error to the Superior Court of the city of New York, “being possessed of tbe record and proceedings upon a remittitur from tbe Court of Appeals of the State of New York.” It was a bill in equity, filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, by Jesse Hoyt, the plaintiff in error, against Abraham G. Thompson, George B. Fisk, the Long Island Railroad Company, and the Statutory Representatives of the State of Michigan.

William II. Meyer and Edwin R. Wilcox filed their libelin the District Court against the steamer St. Lawrence, her engine, tackle, apparel, &c., for supplies to the value of $2,500,' payment of which had been demanded and refused. The libellants averred that the St. Lawrence had been in the port of New York ever since the supplies wer¿ furnished, and they had a lien on her by the law of the State.

Writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district of New York. This was assumpsit brought in the Circuit Court by Alexander Cross, a subject of the British Queen, against George Law. The declaration (or complaint) contained the common counts, which the defendant answered with the plea of nonassumpsit and a notice of set-off. it appeared on the trial that Law, the defendant, established a line of steamers to run between Panama and San Francisco.

Don Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo petitioned the Land Commission at San Francisco for .confirmation of his claim to the tract known by the name oí Suscól, bounded on the north by Tulucay, and Suisun on the east, and south by the Straits of Carquin.es, Mare Island, and Napa Bay. It includes the city of Benicia, the ,town of Vallejo, the navy-yard of the United States, and' the depot of the Pacific Steamship Company, and contains altogether about eighteen square leagues.

Held: that the plaintiff may recover from the sureties in the bond the amount of the judgment. 2. Sureties in such a bond are sureties of the partnership, and if compelled to pay the money, they have an action for reimbursement against all who were partners at the date of the bond. 8.

This was a libel filed in the District Court by Henry Eitzhugh, De Witt 0.

.Both these cases came up on certificates of the judges of the Circuit.-Court that they were divided, in opinion on certain points raised at the trial. . ■ ■ • The questions on which the judges divided in the court below are mentioned in the opinion of Mr. Justice Nelson. The arguments of counsel here were mainly on the merits of the cause; but- this court being also divided,' nothing was determined except the points of practice noted at the head of this report.

This was a bill in equity brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the district Missouri, by Richard Pindell, of Kentucky, against Napoleon B. Mullikin, Jerome B. Mullikin, Charles B. Wiggins, and Virginia, his wife, John R. Shepley, William H. McPherson, P. Dexter Tiffany, Samuel Willi, James Clements, jr., and David H. Armstrong, citizens of the. State of Missouri.

Held: That the stockholders of a bank, organized under the general banking law before the amendment of the constitution, are liable for the debts of the association in their individual capacity. 2. That the articles of association, made by the stockholders at the time they organized themselves as a bank, were not a contract with the State. 3.

"Writ of error to the Supreme Court of Missouri. This action was commenced in the St. Louis Land Court, by William Milburn, William Glasgow, jr., .and William C. Taylor, against Jean Baptiste Hortiz.

Held: it may legally do any act or forbid any act which would render the right less valuable, tend to its destruction, or prevent its enjoyment. Vattel, Book I, Ch. 20, § 246; Corfidd vs. Coryell, (4 Wash.