« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
The V. S. copper plates turned up at the edge were imported Potts under the denomination of copper plates, and the , - jury expressly found that they came under that
v description. But in the present case they were imported under the denomination of " raised bottoms."
The real question is, whether these raised bottoms are to be considered as manufactured copper, or as much a raw material as plain copper plates.
The acts of congress on this subject are all to be construed together. They are the act of July, 4, 1789. c. 2. Oswald's edit. Laws U. S. vol. 1. p. 21. The act of 10th of August, 1790, § 1. Laws U. S. vol. 1. p. 251. The act of May 2, 1792, § 2. Laws U. S. vol. 2. p. 71. And the act of June 7, 1794, Laws U. S. vol. 3. p. 108.
In the case of the United States v. Kid Of Watson, the jury having found that the articles imported came under the description of copper in plates, there was nothing left for judicial decision.
But a question of revenue ought not to be left to the caprice, or misunderstanding of juries. It ought not to be left to the different customs or names used in different ports of the United States. The decisions on this subject ought to be uniform, and they can only be made so by the opinion of this court.
The case was submitted without argument.
Marshall, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court to the following effect:
The opinion of this court is, that copper plates turned up at the edge are exempt from duty, although imported under the denomination of raised the u- S.
I v. bottoms. Potts.
It appears to have been the policy of the United States to distinguish between raw and manufactured copper, from the facts stated, the copper in question cannot be deemed manufactured copper within the intention of the legislature.
The opinion certified to the court below was, that round copper bottoms turned up at the edge are not liable to the payment of duty within the meaning »t the several acts of congress.
RUSH v. PARKER.
ERROR to the circuit court of the district of This court will Maryland, in an action of replevin. pCcurHffida
vits as to the
i". P. Boyd, for the defendant in error* contended, ^"teer°„ that the replevin bond being in the penal sum of pute. 1,200 dollars only, was conclusive evidence that the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, did not amount to 2,000 dollars, and consequently this court has no jurisdiction in the case,
Martin, contra, stated that he did not know till yesterday that this point would be made in the cause, and prayed time to show by affidavits the real value af the matter in dispute. Which
The court granted.
Livingston, J. thought that leave ought not to be given, on account of the delay it would produce. He had found a practice established here of receiving such affidavits; but he did not know of any case in which time h;td been given to produce them; and he would not consent to give it now. The case was brought up to last term. The party ought to have come prepared to support the jurisdiction.
This being the last day of the term, and no affidavits having been produced,
The writ of error was dismissed, this court having no jurisdiction in the case.
LOGAN v. PATRICK.
The circuit THIS was a case certified from the circuit court SonaVnUria for the 7th circuit and district of Kentucky, in' suit inequity, which the judges below differed in opinion upon the Seeding Allowing questions:
a judgment at
the same'T" Whether the complainant, (Logan,) who is a citi» ties.^aWiough zen of the state of Kentucky, and is so stated in the the subposna pleadings, can maintain this suit, in this court, the^deitmiant against the defendant, who is a citizen and inhabited 0/ the din- ant of the state of Virginia, and is so stated in the tb^ourtWin> pleadings, upon the following case: John Patrick obtained in this court a judgment in ejectment against David Logan, who filed a bill in equity against him to be relieved against the judgment, and to compel a conveyance of the land, and obtained aa injunction to stay proceedings on the judgment; but the subpoena was not served in the district of Kentucky. Can this court entertain jurisdiction of the cause? If not, does the defendant's answering the bill, without insisting upon the objection that the process was not served upon him in the district of Kentucky, authorize the court to entertain the cause?
The Court, upon the first opening of the case
3aid there could be no doubt of the jurisdiction of Logan the court below, and ordered it to be certified ac- Patrtck. bordingly. v^^.-^/
RODFORD v. CRAIG.
NO appearance having been entered on the docket if the counsel for either party in this cause, no counsel appearing, on neither side the court ordered both parties to be called, and nei- the^cause *i» ther of them appearing, the court ordered the writ called, the writ of error to be dismissed. vSS* *
The same order was made in the cases of Banks v. Bastrop, Tompkins v. Tompkins, and Buchannan v. Teates.
HARRISON v. STERRY AND OTHERS.
THIS was an appeal from a decree of the circuit In the distri. court for the district of South Carolina, in a suit in jjjjjj^ e* equity, in which Richard Harrison was complainant, fecu in thi» and the following parties defendants, viz. 1. The ??u.nt7> the
Tt . , r, ~ «. i L • r rr United States
United States. 2. Sterry and others, assignees of H. are entitled to
M. Bird and Benjamin Savage under a British com- » preference,
mission of bankruptcy. 3. Aspinwall and others, as- %M contracted
signees of Robert Bird, under an American com- by a foreigner
mission of bankruptcy. 4. Several American credit- J^n*t_7TMjjJJJ
ors who had attached the effects of Bird, Savage £s? although the
Bird, in South Carolina. 5. Several Biithh credit- Un,ited State' Iiii i ii rr At proven
ors who had also attached the same effects. And, 6. their debt un
Thomas Parker, who, by consent of the creditors, <le.r the com:
c , mission ol
had been appointed by the court or common pleas in bankruptcy, South Carolina, an agent for all the parties concern- aud h«d voted ed, to collect and receive the debts due to Bird, Anassl^meiu Savage & Bird, which had been attached, and when by one p»rt
a ner, in thr
VoL V. O 0 name «f fhe Harrison received, to hold the same till the further order of the Stevry. court.
The question was, how those attached effects copartnership, should be distributed.
uf the partnership enects anil
credits, i» va- Hqrrison, the complainant, claimed them as a trustfader a sepa-tee ^or tne benefit of certain creditors of the house rate eommis- of Robert Bird Co. which was the name of the
sion of bank.
• upi..y u»t nrm wmch the house of Bird, Savage & Bird of one partner, London, carried on merchandise at New-York, rest hi'n "the Robert Bird, desirous of aiding and supporting the joint effects credit of the house of Bird, Savage & Bird, by raipasses. sino- funds, upon the security of the cargo of the East
The bankrupt- P. , .' S . . ,J . ,.*? ,
law of a fo- India ship Semi^amis, and certain debts to a large reign country amount due to them in South Carolina, made a deed aTgaitomsferof trust on the 3d of December, 1802, intending •if property in thereby to assign that cargo and those debts to the »h» eountry. cornpiainant. The deed purported to be signed and sealed by H. M. Bird and Benjamin Savage, by Robert Bird, their attorney; and by Robert Bird, in his own right. It recited that, "whereas H. M. Bird, Benjamin Savage and Robert Bird, being copartners in trade under the several firms of Bird, Savage & Bird, and Robert Bird & Co. have in consequence of disappointments been obliged to borrow money from the bank of England, and under the firm of Robert Bird & Co. to purchase bills of exchange, public and bank stocks and goods, upon credit in America, in order to furnish means of more effectually supporting the credit of the said Bird, Savage & Bird of London. And whereas it may be necessary for the purpose aforesaid, that the said Robert Bird & Co. should continue to make such purchases until the present difficulties may be removed -T and security having been already given to the persons bound as sureties to the bank of England, for their responsibilities, the said H. M. Bird, Benjamin Savage and Robert Bird, are desirous to secure all persons from whom purchases have been or may be made as aforesaid, for the purpose of aiding the said house or firm of Bird, Savage & Bird. Now, therefore, know ye, that the said Henry M. Bird, Benjamin