« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
8. Laches of the officers of the United States does not of itself discharge sureties on an
official bond. Doz v. The Postmaster-General of the United States, 596.
9. No presumption of payment of such a bond arises from the lapse of a little more
than five years. Ib.
10. Under a marshal's bond, the cause of action does not accrue to a party plaintiff,
whose judgment the marshal fails to satisfy, until the final judgment has been ren-
dered, though he may have before that time wrongfully used money in his hands
bound for the judgment. Montgomery v. Hernandez, 81.
11. The question, whether a nolle prosequi may be entered against one or more de-
fendants, in an action on a joint and several bond, is a matter of practice, to be
decided upon considerations of policy and convenience. Minor v. The Mechanics'
Bank of Alexandria, 445.
12. The defendants having severed in their pleadings, and no right to contribution
being affected, a nolle prosequi entered after judgment against the sureties, as to the
principal obligor, was held regular. Ib.
13. Relief in equity against a judgment at law, upon certain bonds given for the in:
demnity of the obligee, as indorser of notes drawn by the obligor, the obligee having
been indemnified. Scott v. Shreeve, 390.
14. The assignee of such bonds takes them subject to all equities existing between the
original parties. 16.
15. A notice of a motion for an execution under a forthcoming bond, by the law of
Virginia, is not inoperative because it describes the writ of fi. fa., as issued against
the judgment-debtor who gave the bond, when in fact it was against him and another.
Alexander v. Brown, 768.
CORPORATION, 1. 2; COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, 4. 9; EVIDENCE, 11;
PLEADING, 1 ; POSTMASTER; RESPONDENTIA; SURETY.
Bond, 2-4; CORPORATION, 1, 2; SURETY, 3. 4.
Devise, &c. 9–11.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 4.
1. An insolvent law of a State does not impair the obligation of future contracts be-
tween its citizens. Ogden v. Saunders, 132.
2. But it cannot affect the rights of creditors who are citizens of other States. 16.
3. The decision in Ogden v. Saunders applies, where the action is brought in the court
of some other State than the one where the discharge has been obtained. Shaw v.
Robbins, 226, n.
4. A state law requiring an importer to take a license and pay fifty dollars, before he
should be permitted to sell a package of imported goods, is in conflict with that
provision of the constitution of the United States which prohibits a State from laying
any imp 1st, &c., and also with the clause which declares that congress shall have
power to regulate commerce, &c. Brown v. Maryland, 262.
B. A court erected by the territorial legislature of Florida to try and determine cases
of salvage, is in conformity with the constitution and laws of the United States. The
American Insurance Company v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 685.
6. A case in admiralty is not “a case arising under the constitution and laws of the
United States," within the meaning of the 8th section of the act of March 3, 1823,
(3 Stats. at Large, 752,) to amend the act organizing the Territory of Florida. Ib.
7. Whether the power of congress to govern the territories is derived from the right
of the United States to acquire territory, or from that clause in the constitution
which empowers congress “to make all needful rules and regulations concerning
the territory and other property of the United States,” the possession of the power
is unquestioned. Ib.
8. A territorial court held by judges whose appointments are for four years, cannot be
the depositary of any part of the judicial power conferred by the constitution on the
general government. 16.
Bills OF EXCHANGE, &c. 13; BOND, 1; MILITIA ; Nonsult.
Where A agreed to ship sugars to B, for account of C, by such vessel as C might
designate — held, that C might empower B to designate the vessel. D'Wolf v.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1-3; EVIDENCE, 6; FRAUDS, STATUTE OF; SALE, 3–5.
1. The acceptance of a cashier's bond by the board of directors of the bank, may be
· proved, without the production of a written record, by the facts that the person
acted as cashier, and was recognized as such by the directors, and that the bond was
required to be given as a condition precedent to his so acting, and was actually
among the corporate documents. The Bank of the United States v. Dandridge, 29.
2. If a provision in a charter or by-law be directory merely, a deviation from it cannot
be taken advantage of by third persons. Ib.
3. The subscription of the whole amount of the capital stock of a bank is not a condition
precedent to its corporate existence, unless made so by the terms of its charter.
Minor v. The Mechanics' Bank of Alexandria, 445.
ABATEMENT, 1; COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, 11.
1. No judgment or decree can be rendered directly against the United States for
costs and expenses. The Antelope, 347.
2. The fees and compensation to the marshal, for keeping, &c., captured Africans, where
his fees or compensation are chargeable to the United States, are to be paid out of
the treasury, upon a certificate of the amount, to be made by the court, or one of
the judges. 16.
MILITIA, 3. 4.
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.
1. If both parties assert title under an act of congress, this court has jurisdiction, under
the 25th section of the Judiciary Act. (1 Stats. at Large, 83.) Ross v. Barland,
:. Under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act, though a treaty or act of congress
need not be specially pleaded, the record must show a complete title under the
treaty or act relied on, and that the court below decided against its validity. Hickie
V. Starke, 476.
8. Under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act, (1 Stats. at Large, 85,) it is not every
misconstruction of an act of congress wbich can be reëxamined; the decision must
have been against some right, &c., so claimed under such an act Montgomery v.
4. This court cannot reëxamine the decision of a state court allowing an action on a
marshal's bond in the name of the person injured. Ib.
5. It must appear by the record that one of the specific questions described in the 25th
section of the Judiciary Act necessarily arose, and was determined adversely to the
right, &c., claimed under the constitution, or some law or treaty of the United
States; otherwise, this court has not jurisdiction. Williams v. Norris, 72.
6. The written opinion of a state court, filed among the papers, is not a part of the
record, and cannot be examined under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act, (1
Stats. at Large, 85,) to ascertain the questions decided. Ib.
• 7. An order made by a court of a State, after the removal of the record by a writ of
error, not by way of amendment, but introducing new matter, cannot be deemed a
part of the record. 16.
8. This court cannot take jurisdiction upon a certificate of a question on which the
opinions of the judges of the circuit court are opposed, upon some proceeding subse-
quent to the decision of the cause in that court. Devereaux v. Marr, 131.
9. Under the act of March 3, i815, (3 Stats. at Large, 245, sec. 4,) the circuit courts
of the United States have jurisdiction of suits by the postmaster-general, upon official
bonds of postmasters. The Postmaster-General of the United States v. Early, 86.
10. If it be the established practice of the courts of a State, in an action of ejectment,
to look behind the patent and examine into the validity of the progressive stages of
the title, this court, on a writ of error under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act,
cannot examine the correctness of that practice. Ross v. Barland, 752.
11. The circuit court has not jurisdiction of a case in which a corporation is defendant,
if the record contains no averment concerning the citizenship of the corporators.
Breithaupt v. The Bank of the State of Georgia, 551.
ABATEMENT, 3; AMENDMENT; BILLS OF EXCHANGE, &c. 13; CONSTITUTIONAL
Law, 5–8; DEPOSITION; DEVISE, &c. 1; EQUITY, 4.5; INJUNCTION, 1. 2; MAN-
DAMUS; Nonsuit; Practice; WRIT OF ERROR.
In Kentucky, seisin in deed is not essential to a tenancy by the curtesy, if the lands
were vacant - seisin in law is sufficient. Davis v. Mason, 679.
CUSTOM AND USAGE.
BILLS OF EXCHANGE, &c. 10; Bond, 1. 3; PRACTICE, 4; PUBLIC LANDS, 12.
1. By the statutes of Ohio, an unrecorded deed is void as against one to whom the
grantor was decreed by a court of chancery to make a title, such decree operating
as a conveyance. Steele's Lessee v. Spencer, 694.
2. The question whether an alteration was made in a deed is for a jury; whether an
alteration, if made, was material, is for the court. Ib.
3. The privy examination and acknowledgment of the deed of a feme covert cannot be
proved by parol. Elliott v. Piersol's Lessee, 601.
4. When the clerk has made a record of his certificate of such examination and ac-
knowledgment, he is functus officio, and cannot afterwards amend the certificate. 16.
5. If a real conveyance of land has been made to a citizen of another State, who
brings his action therefor, it is of no importance that the grantor was induced to
convey because he thought his title would be held good in a court of the United
States, and bad in a court of the State, nor that the conveyance, though in form ab-
solute, was really but a mortgage. M'Donald v. Smalley, 732.
EQUITY, 3; HUSBAND AND WIFE.
1. Under the 30th section of the Judiciary Act, a deposition is not admissible if the
certificate does not clearly show the deposition was reduced to writing in the pres-
ence of the magistrate. Bell v. Morrison, 612.
2. Cross-examining a witness is a waiver of irregularity in the time of taking the dep-
osition. The Mechanics' Bank of Alexandria v. Seton, 585.
DEVISE AND LEGACY..
1. This court adopts the decisions of the highest court of a State settling a rule of con-
struction of devises of lands. Jackson v. Chew, 94.
2. A possession of land taken and held under an execution, not against the lawful
owner, does not prevent him from devising the land under the law of New York.
Waring v. Jackson, 702.
3 A testator having empowered his executors, his wife to have a voice as executrix,
to decide finally what was his intention, in case of dispute — held, that if this power
was valid, it did not enable the executors to decide contrary to the plain intent of
the testator, to be judged of by a court of justice, nor to decide a question in which
they or either of them was interested. Pray v. Belt, 760.
1. Construction of a will; legacy vested and payable from a specific fund. 16.
5. Under a devise to two sons in fee, with a clause that if either die without issue, the
survivor should take his part, and if both die without issue, then over. Held, that,
under the law of New York, nothing passed by this last limitation over. Waring v.
6. In New York, a devise over to a survivor on failure of issue is deemed to be on a
definite and not an indefinite failure of issue, and so is good by way of executory
devise, and does not create an estate tail by implication, but a fee-simple, defeasible
by death without issue in the lifetime of the survivor. Jackson v. Chew, 94.
7. An absolute bequest of certain slaves to P. H. is qualified by a subsequent limitation
over, that if either of the testator's grandchildren, P. H. or J. D. A., should die
without a lawful heir of their bodies, that the other should heir its estate, which con-
verted the previous estate into an estate tail; and there being no words in the will
which restrained the dying without issue to the time of the death of the legatee, the
limitation over was held to be on a contingency too remote. Williamson v. Daniel,
8. The rule of partus sequitur ventrem is universally followed, unless there be something
in the terms of the instrument which disposes of the mother, separating the issue
from her. Ib.
• 9. A devise of a tract of land to A., “ he paying all my debts,” charges the debts on
the land, and gives the other devisees and legatees a right to maintain a bill to have
the debts paid thereout. The creditors need not be made parties. Potter v. Gardner,
10. A purchaser from the devisee may be charged for the purchase-money remaining
in his hands, and for what he has aided the devisee in misapplying. Ib.
11. Though a will charging debts on the testator's “estate ” may subject his lands to
their payment, yet, if the context shows the testator referred only to his personalty
by the word estate, the lands are not charged. Archer v. Deneale, 711.
PARTIES, 4; WILL.
1. A bill in equity for discovery and to charge the defendants with the payment of cer-
tain bills issued by a voluntary banking association of which they were members,
such associations being prohibited under penalties by the law of the State where the
business was carried on, cannot be maintained. The United States v. The Saline
Bank of Virginia, 477.
• 2. After discovery had, a suit for discovery merely cannot be revived. Horsburg v.
ADMIRALTY, 1; REVENUE LAWS.
AMENDMENT; COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, 10; PLEADING, 3; WRIT or
1. A court of equity has jurisdiction to compel a bank to open its transfer books and
permit a transfer of its stock. The Mechanics' Bank of Alexandria v. Seton, 585.
2. Where a female slave was conveyed for the life of the grantee, reserving to the
grantor the reversion and right to her increase, with a clause of forfeiture upon any
sale by the grantee, though the reversioner cannot have the aid of a court of equity
to enforce the forfeiture, he may, to obtain discovery and an injunction to restrain
alienation until the title can be tried at law. Horsburg v. Baker, 546.
3. Where the equity of a bill rests upon the loss of a deed, an affidavit of its loss should
be annexed to the bill; but the want of it is only cause of demurrer, and is waived
by answering. Findlay v. Hinde, 552.
4. The practice of the circuit courts in equity has been prescribed by this court, and
should be followed to the exclusion of the practice of the state courts. M'Donalul
v. Smalley, 732.
5. If the circuit court has dismissed the bill for want of jurisdiction, and the decree is
reversed, this court will not hear the merits, but remand the cause. Ib.
ANSWER; BOND, 13. 14; DISCOVERY; MISTAKE OF LAW; MORTGAGE; PARTIES,
1-5: PUBLIC LANDS, 11; SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
1. Declarations of a master concerning the voyage, made while endeavoring to hire a
mato, and as inducements to him to engage, are evidence against his employer. The
United States v. Gooding, 281.