« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
5. If a merchant abroad send a letter of instructions to a merchant here, by the hand
of a person named in the letter, which declares the bearer to be the agent of the
writer, and the bearer of his orders, and refers to him for verbal communications
the merchant here has a right to act upon the belief, that such agent has discretion-
ary authority to authorize a departure from the terms of the letter, in an emergency
which was probably not foreseen. Manella v. Barry, 624.
6. A contract, not immoral, but in fraud of a war regulation existing when it was
made, cannot be enforced, though made between enemies, and a mere stratagem of
war. Hannay v. Eve, 568.
AGENT, 1; GUARANTY; LAND LAWS, 1.
A corporation can exert its powers only in the manner authorized by its charter; and
where that declared that instruments signed by the president, or an officer authorized
by the by-laws, or the directors, should bind the company, it was held that such a
signature was necessary. Head v. Providence Ins. Co. 459.
1. A judgment for costs includes all the costs belonging to the suit, whether prior or
subsequent to the rendition of judgment. If new costs accrue, the judgment opens
to receive them, and the costs of an original ca. sa. returned non est may be included
in the alias ca. sa. Peyton v. Brooke, 535.
2. Costs will be allowed upon a dismission of a writ of error, for want of jurisdiction,
if the original defendant be also defendant in error. Winchester v. Jackson, 654.
DAMAGES, 3; WRIT OF ERROR, 23.
The judgment of a court martial, in a case not within its jurisdiction, does not protect
the officer who executes it. Wise v. Withers, 597.
INTERNATIONAL LAW, 1. 2; JUDGMENT, &c.; LAW AND FAcT; MANDAMUS, 1-3;
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.
1. Congress has power to establish such inferior tribunals as it thinks proper, and to
transfer pending proceedings from one such tribunal to another. Stuart v. Laird,
2. During the war of the Revolution, congress had power to appoint commissioners of
appeal, and to constitute an appellate court for the final decision of prize causes.
Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 84.
3. In a prize cause, an appeal having been taken from the decision of the highest court
of the State of New Hampshire, to congress, and having been referred to the com-
missioners of appeal, and subsequently heard and adjudicated by the court of appeals,
it was held that its decree was coram judice, and binding. Ib.
4. This decree not having been executed, the district court of the United States for
New Hampshire had jurisdiction of a libel to enforce it. Ib.
5. The death of one of the parties to the decree did not affect the right to have the
decree executed. Ib.
6. A prayer for general relief, allowed a recovery of damages for not executing the
original decree. Ib.
7. This court will not take cognizance of any suit, or controversy not brought before
them by regular process of law. Dewhurst v. Coulthard, 3. 290.
8. An appellate jurisdiction can be exercised by this court only in conformity with
such regulations as congress prescribes. Wiscart v. Dauchy, 240.
9. A writ of error, in contradistinction to an appeal, is the mode prescribed by the
Judiciary Act, to bring equity and admiralty cases to this court. Ib.
10. No act of congress has authorized a writ of error from this court to the general
court of the Northwestern Territory, consequently such a writ was dismissed.
Clarke v. Bazadone, 396.
11. When the jurisdiction of the court below depends on the citizenship of the parties,
if the record does not show the necessary citizenship, the judgment will be reversed
for want of jurisdiction. Bingham v. Cabot, 267. Emory v. Greenough, 265.
Turner v. Enrille, 311. Abercrombie v. Dupuis, 422. Wood v. Wagnon, 427.
12. The parties to an equity suit must be so described on the record as to show that
the court has jurisdiction. It is not enough that an alien is a party; the other party
must be a citizen. Mossman v. Higginson, 313.
13. The 11th section of the Judiciary Act, (1 Stats. at Large, 78,) makes it necessary
to state on the record the citizenship of the payee of a negotiable note sued on by
an indorsee. Turner v. Bank of N. America, 311.
14. If a new party and subject-matter are brought before the court by a supplemental
bill, it must show that the court has jurisdiction by reason of the citizenship of the
parties to that bill. Course v. Slead, 319.
15. Where the interest is joint, each of the persons concerned in that interest must be
competent to sue, or liable to be sued in the courts of the United States, to sustain
the jurisdiction. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 575.
16. Where the interest is not joint, the court gives no opinion. Ib.
17. The superior court of Rhode Island is the highest court of law of that State within
the meaning of the 25th section of the Judiciary Act, (1 Stats. at Large, 85.) Olney
v. Arnold, 235.
18. If a state court decree in favor of a right claimed under the act of congress, this
court has not jurisdiction under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act. Gordon v.
19. This court has jurisdiction by writ of error of the proceedings upon a caveat, filed
in, or removed to the district court of the United States for Kentucky Wilson v.
Mason. Mason v. Wilson, 346.
20. If there is judgment against the defendant for $200,000, the penalty of the bond
declared on, to be discharged on payment of $1,800, the amount found by the jury
to be the damages for the breach of the condition of the bond, the matter in dispute
exceeds $2,000, within the meaning of the Judiciary Act, and a writ of error lies to
this court. Wilson v. Daniel, 284.
21. Such a judgment is final, and a writ of error may be brought, though the record
does not show that one of the pleas was in any way disposed of. Ib.
22. If the value of the matter in dispute does not appear on the record, either by the
demand of the plaintiff, or the finding of the jury, it may be shown by affidavits
taken on notice. But in such a case the writ of error does not operate as a super-
sedeas. Williamson v. Kincaid, 316.
23. If the value of the matter in dispute does not appear, it may be shown by affidavit.
Course v. Stead, 319.
24. Where an illegal commitment was made by justices of the peace, in the District
of Columbia, and the circuit court on habeas corpus made a different order of com-
mitment, correcting two errors, but still erroneous, this court has jurisdiction to
revise the proceedings of the circuit court upon habeas corpus out of this court.
Ex parte Burford, 638.
25. Where the opinions of the judges of the circuit court are opposed, this court can
only consider the single question upon which the judges below divided in opinion,
but the parties will not be precluded from bringing a writ of error upon the final
judgment below, and the whole cause will then be before the court. Ogle v. Lee,
26. Judges of the supreme court may hold the circuit courts. Contemporaneous con-
struction of the constitution, and long practice and acquiescence, have put this ques-
tion at rest. Stuart v. Laud, 414.
27. Every district court of the United States possesses all the powers of a court of
admiralty, both instance and prize, and may award restitution of property claimed
as prize of war by a foreign captor. Glass v. Sloop Betsey, 74.
28. Though the record shows the district judge was on the bench, if it also shows he
did not sit in the cause, he was absent in contemplation of law. Bingham v. Cabbot,
29. The district court cannot take jurisdiction of a libel for damages, in case of a cap
ture as prize, by a foreign belligerent power on the high seas, the captured vessel
not being within the United States, but infra præsidia of the captors. United
States v. Peters, 127.
30. A writ of prohibition issued. Ib.
31. If a captured vessel is abandoned at sea by the captors, and being thus derelict, is
taken possession of by a neutral and brought into a neutral port, and libelled for
salvage, the district court has jurisdiction to entertain such libel, and ex necessitate,
may also adjudicate upon the conflicting claims of the captors and former owners, to
the surplus in the registry. M'Donough v. Dannery, 163.
32. In such a case the claim of the captors was allowed, as no neutral nation can im-
pugn or destroy the right vested in the belligerent by the capture. Ib.
BOND, 4; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 3-5. 7. 10–11; Writ oF ERROR, passim.
1. When a judgment or decree is affirmed on a writ of error, there can be no allow-
ance of damages, except for delay. Cotton v. Wallace, 231.
2. Eight per cent. per annum allowed. Ib.
3. Counsel fees not allowed as part of the damages. Arcambel v. Wiseman, 234.
4. If a prize is sold by agreement, and the money stopped in the hands of the mar-
shal, by a third person, not a party to the agreement, increased damages are not
allowed, but only interest on the debt. Jennings v. Brig Perseverance, 251.
5. Damages having been assessed in a gross sum by commissioners, without any spe-
cification of items, that part of the decree was reversed, though the report of the
commissioners was not excepted to in the court below. Murray v. Schooner Charm-
ing Betsey, 450.
Bond, 5; CAPTURE, 2–5; COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, 6. 20. 22. 23. 29;
FRAUD, 1; PRACTICE, 7; PRIVATEER.
PRACTICE, 5; COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, 5.
An action of debt will not lie in Maryland upon a promissory note. Lindo v. Gardner,
DEBTOR AND CREDITOR.
The act of Maryland, requiring a deed of land to be acknowledged and recorded, does
not apply to the instrument, but to the estate designed to be conveyed, and such an
instrument is an executed deed from the time of its delivery. Wood v. Owings,
PRACTICE, 6; REVENUE Laws 2; STATE.
1. Though under the law of Virginia, an attorney at law is not compellable to receive
notice of the taking of a deposition, he may do so, and he may waive notice. Bud-
dicum v. Kirk, 584.
2. Notice of taking a deposition on the 8th of August, and if not taken in one day, that
the commissioners would adjourn from day to day until it should be finished, is not
complied with, if the commissioners meet on the 8th and adjourn to the 10th, and
then take the deposition. Ib.
3. An agreement by an attorney at law that the deposition might be taken whether he
should attend or not, and his failure to make known any objection when he exa-
mined the deposition, and the death of the witness, amount to a waiver of the above
4. A commission to examine witnesses will not be awarded, although the opposing
counsel assent, until the commissioners are named. Vanstophorst v. Maryland, 2.
1. A devise of “all the estate called M., lying in H. county, containing by estimation
2,585 acres, also one other tract called H. P., containing by estimation, &c., also one
other tract, containing, &c., called P. F.” carries a fee in the first-mentioned lands,
without words of limitation. Lambert's Lessee v. Paine, 535.
2. A direction in a will, that if the estate shall not be sufficient to pay certain specific
legacies and annuities they shall not abate in proportion, but the deficiency shall be
deducted from a certain legacy given to the residuary devisee and legatee, applies to
deficiencies arising from losses after the death of the testator. Silsby v. Young,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
1. The District of Columbia is not “a State,” within the meaning of that term as used
in the constitution, and its citizens cannot sue in the courts of the United States as
citizens of any State. Hepburn v. Ellzey, 520.
2. By the separation of the District of Columbia from Maryland, the inhabitants of the
district ceased to be citizens of that State, and a discharge of one of them under the
insolvent laws of Maryland was not valid. Reily v. Lamar, 495.
3. Though the plaintiff took administration in Maryland, before the separation of the
District of Columbia, he cannot sue as administrator in the circuit court for that
district. Fenwick v. Sears's Administrators, 411.
4. The supreme court has not jurisdiction of a writ of error to the circuit court for the
District of Columbia in a criminal case. United States v. More, 3 C. 159....550.
5. The acts of congress of the 27th of February, 1801, (2 Stats. at Large, 103,) and 3d
of March, 1801, (2 Stats. at Large, 115,) did not enable the United States in their
own name to recover a penalty, given by the law of Virginia to the person who
should sue for the same, for an offence committed in that part of the District of Co-
lumbia which was ceded by Virginia United States v. Simms, 408.
6. The fines mentioned in the second section of the last-mentioned act are such only
as accrued by law, in whole or in part, to the government. 16.
If the finding of a jury on an issue in an equity cause is not consistent with an admis-
sion in the answer, it must be rejected; but both must stand, if reconcilable. Mc-
Ferran v. Taylor, 577.
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, 9; INSURANCE, 8; PLEADING, 5; PROCESS, &c.,
2. 3; VENDOR AND PURCHASER; WRIT OF ERROR, 20. 21.
1. A promise to answer for the duty of another must be wholly in writing, and cannot
be varied, explained, or added to, by parol evidence. Clarke v. Russell, 295.
2. Foreign laws, on a subject of common concern, which have been promulgated by
the government of the United States, may be read in a court of admiralty, without
· further proof. Talbot v. Seeman, 331.
3. It is not a consular function to authenticate the laws of a foreign state, and the cer-
tificate of a consul to that effect is not evidence. Church v. Hubbart, 470.
4. A copy of a foreign degree, purporting to be certified as correct by a person signing
his name and adding to it, “secretary of state for foreign affairs,” and affixing his
own seal, is not duly authenticated. Ib.
5. A consular certificate is not admissible to prove the correctness of a translation. Io.
6. A report of surveyors that a vessel is unsound on the 17th of November, 1802, at a
port of necessity, does not conclusively prove that she was so at the outset of the
voyage on the 24th of October, 1802, in the absence of all parol evidence, Marine
Insurance Co. of Alexandria v. Wilson, 555.
7. It is not error to reject legal evidence of an irrelevant fact. Turner v. Fendall,
Bond, 3; CONTRACT, 4; JURISDICTION, 2.