Page images
PDF
EPUB

2. The acts of Congress of 27th February, and

CONFISCATION-4.
8d March, 1801. concerning the District of Colum- 1. The act of Georgia confiscating the estate of
bia, have not changed the laws of Maryland and

the mortgageor is no bar to the claim of the mort.
Virginia, adopted by Congress as the laws of that
district,' any further than the change of jurisdic- questered during the war.

gagee, a British merchant, whose debt was only se-

The estate of the mort-
tion rendered a change of those laws necessary.

gageor only was confiscated, not that of the mort-
United States v. Simms,

(252) 98

gagee.
3. Fines, forfeitures and penalties, arising from Higginson v. Mein,

(416) 664
a breach of those laws, are to be sued for, and re- 2. If a confiscating act, independent of the
covered, in the same manner as before the change treaty, would be construed to destroy the claim of
of jurisdiction, mutatis mutandis. Id. (16.) 98 a British mortgagee. the treaty reinstates the lien
See Adininistrator.

in its full force; and a subsequent sale could only
COLUMBIA-2.

pass it with its burden.

Higginson v. Mein,
1. The inhabitants of the District of Columbia,

(419) 665
by its separation from the states of Virginia and

CONNECTICUT-4.
Maryland, ceased to be citizens of those states re-

1. See Foreign Attachment, 2. Covenant, 2.
spectively. Reily v. Lamar et al., (344) 300
2. By the insolvent law of Maryland of 3d of

CONGRESS-1.
January, 1800, the Chancellor of Maryland could
not discharge a citizen of Maryland who resided in jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of the United

1. Congress have not the power to give original
the District of Columbia at the time of its separa- States, in other cases than those described in the
tion from Maryland, unless the insolvent had como constitution.
plied with all the requisites of the law, so as to en-

Marbury 1. Madison,

(176) 73
title himself to a discharge before that separation. 2. An act of Congress repugnant to the constitu-
Id.
(16.) 300 tion, cannot become a law. Id.

(16.) 73
3. A citizen of the District of Columbia cannot

3. A cause may, by act of Congress, be trans-
maintain an action against a citizen of Virginia in ferred from one inferior tribunal to another.
the circuit court of the United States for the dis.

Stuart v. Laird,

(299) 115
trict of Virginia ; but a citizen of the district of

4. Congress may constitutionally imposé upon
Virginia may maintain an action against a citizen the judges of the Supreme Court of the United
of the District of Columbia, in the circuit court of States, the burden of holding circuit courts.
the United States for the District of Columbia.

Id.

(Ib.) 115
Hcpburn et al. 1. Ellzey,

(445) 332
4. A citizen of the District of Columbia is not a

CONSTITUTION-.1.
citizen of a state, within the meaning of the consti- 1. The Supreme Court of the United States has
tution of the United States. Id. (16.) 332 not the power to issue a mandamus to a Secretary

of State of the United States, it being an exercise
COLUMBIA-4.

of original jurisdiction, not warranted by the con-
1. The right of Virginia to legislate for that partstitution, notwithstanding the act of Congress.
of the District of Columbia which was ceded by her

Marbury v. Madison,

(137) 60
to the United States conticued until the 27th of 2. An act of Congress repugnant to the constitu-
February, 1901.

tion cannot become a law. Id.

(176) 73
Young c. Bank of Alexandria, (384) 655 3. The courts of the United States are bound to
See Appeal, 4.

take notice of the constitution. Id. (178) 73

4. A contemporary exposition of the constitu-
COMMISSION-4.

tion, practiced and acquiesced under, for a period
1. The certificate of commissioners named in a of years, fixes its construction.
dedimus, that they took, in due form of law, the Stuart v. Laird,

(299) 115
oath annexed to the commission, is sufficient evi- 5. Congress may constitutionally imposé upon
dence of that fact.

the judges of the Supreme Court of the United
Grant v. Naylor,

(224) 603 States the burden of holding circuit courts.
2. It is not necessary to give notice to the oppo-

Id.

(10.) 115
site party of the time and place of executing the

CONSTITUTION—2.
commission.

(224)
Grant v. Naylor,

A citizen of the District of Columbia is not a

603
3. If the return of the commission be inclosed in citizen of a state, within the meaning of the con-
an envelope which is sealed, no other sealing by stitution of the United States.
the commissioners is necessary. Ib. (225) 603

Hepburn et al. v. Ellzey,

(445) 332
4. If, after a commission has issued, the parties

CONSTRUCTION-1.
have leave to amend, and a new issue be made up,
similar in substance to the former issue, the deposl-

See Constitution, 4. Act of God.
tions taken under such commission may be used at
the trial of the new issue. Ib.

(232) 605

CONSULS-2.
COMMITMENT—4.

The certificate of a consul of the United States
1. A person may be committed for a crime by under his seal, is not evidence of a foreign lata.

Church v. Hubbart,

(236) 265
one magistrate upon an affidavit made before an.
other.

CONTINUANCE-4.
Er parte Bollman and Swartwout, (76) 555

1. The refusal of the court below to continue a
2. Quære, whether upon a motion to commit a

cause after it is at issue, cannot be assigned for
person for treason, an affidavit stating the sub-

error. Woods & Bemis v. Young,
stance of a letter in possession of the deponent be

(237) 607
admissible evidence? Id.

(16.) 555

CONTRACT-1.
COMMON LAW-4.

See Agent. Public. Admiralty, 10. Bills of Ex-
1. Courts which originate in the common law change, 22. Chose in action.
possess a jurisdiction which must be regulated by
their common law, until some statute change their

CONTRACT-3.
established principles; but courts which are creat-
ed by written law, cannot transcend that

jurisdic whether a written contract be usurious.

1. The court has the exclusive power of deciding
tion. Ex parte Bollman and Suartwout, (93)
2. For the meaning of the term habeas corpus

Levy v. Gadsby,

(181) 403

2. He who sells property on a description given
resort may be had to the common law; but the
power to arard the writ by any of the courts of the by himself, is bound in equity to make good that

description. M'Ferran v. Taylor,
United States must be given by written law.

(270) 436
(93, 94)
Id.

561

3. On a contract to deliver flour, its value is to
3. Quære, whether, upon an indictment for trea-

be ascertained on the day when it ought to have
son, proof of procurement can, in this country, by been delivered. Douglas i. M'Allister, (298) 445
force of the common law, be admitted in evidence
to establish a charge of personal presence.

CONTRACT_4.
United States v. Burr, Appendiw, (502) 700 1. A court of equity will annul a contract which

the defendant has failed to perform, and cannot
COMMISSION–1.

perform on his part.
See Mandamus, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15.

Skillern v. May,

(137)

574

727

2. If the obligee of a bottomry bond suffer the 3. The want of proper parties is, not a good ples,
ship to make several voyages, without asserting if the bill suggests that such parties are out of
his lien, and executions are levied upon the ship by the jurisdiction of the court. Id.

(Ib.) 417
other creditors, the obligee loses his lien upon the 4. The want of proper parties is not a sufficient
ship. Blainc v. Ship Charles Carter, (328), 636 ground for dismissing the bill. Id. (10.) 417

3. Quære, whether a bottomry bond executed by 5. If the executor has no assets you may proceed
the owner at home, creates a lien on the ship in equity, against the devisees or legatees.
which can be enforced in a court of admiralty ?

Id.

(228) 419
id.

(332) 638

CHOSE IN ACTION-1.
BRITISH CREDITORS-2.

1. What is the meaning, extent, and effect of the
1. Legal impediments to the recovery of British rule that a chose in action is not assignable?
debts existed in Virginia until the year 1793.

Appendix,
Dunlop & Co. v. Ball,
(180) 246

(423) 161

2. Can a chose in action be made assignable, or
2. The act of limitations of North Carolina was

negotiable in its original creation, by the contract
suspended as to British creditors during the war. and intention of the parties, independent of the
Ogden v. Blackledge,

(272)

276

custom of merchants, and of statute law ?
BRITISH CREDITORS-4.

Id.

(428) 164
1. See Limitations. Confiscation, 1, 2.

CITATION-1.
2. If a contiscating act, independent of the Brit-

A citation must accompany the writ of error.
ish treaty, would be construed to destroy the claim

A writ of error not accompanied by a citation,
of a British mortgagee, the treaty reinstates the
lien in its full force, and a subsequent sale could should appear. Lloyd v. Alexander,

must be quashed, unless the defendant in error

(365) 137
only pass it cum onere.
Higginson v. Mein,

(415) 664

CITATION—2.
BRITISH SUBJECTS_3.

1. If an appeal is prayed in the court below at

the same term in which the decree is rendered, &
1. Quære, whether a British subject, born in

citation is not necessary.
England in the year 1750, and who always resided

Reily v. Lamar et al.,

(349) 302
in England, could, in the year 1786, take and hold

2. A citation must accompany the writ of error,
lands in Virginia by descent or devise ?

or it will be dismissed.
Lambert v. Paine,

(97) 377

Bailiff v. Tipping,
2. The treaty of peace between Great Britain

(406) 320
and the United States prevents the operation of

CITATION-3.
the act of limitations of Virginia upon British
debts contracted before that treaty.

See Certiorari.
Hopkirk v. Bell,
(454) 497

CITIZEN-1.
BRITISH SUBJECTS_4.

To give jurisdiction to the courts of the United
See Aliens, 2, 3.

States, the pleadings must expressly state the par.

ties to be citizens of different states, or that one of
BRITISH TREATY—2.

them is an alien. It is not sufficient to say that

they reside in different states.
See Aliens, 4.

Abercrombie v. Dupuis,

(343) 129
BRITISH TREATY—4.

CITIZENS-2.
See Limitations, 1. Aliens, 2, 3. Confiscation, 1, 2.

See Jurisdiction, 1. Aliens, 1, 2, 3, 4. Expatria.
tion. Columbia, 1, 2, 3, 4. Courts, i.

CLERK-1.
CAPTURE—3.

The clerk of this court must reside and keep his
The commander of a United States ship of war, oflice at the seat of government. He cannot prac-
if he seizes a vessel on the high seas, without prob- tice as attorney or counsel in this court.
able cause, is liable to make restitution in value

Rules of Court,

(xvi) 11
with damages and costs, even although the vessel How to make return of a writ of error.
is taken out of his possession by superior force ;

Id.

(xvii) 11
and the owner is not bound to resort to the recap- Not to suffer any record to go out of his office.
tor, but may abandon and hold the original captor

id.

(xviii) 11
liable for the whole loss.

COLLECTOR-3.
Maley v. Shattuck,

(458) 498

1. See Mortgage, 1. Petersburgh.
CAPTURE 4.

2. To support a judgment on a collector's bond
See Admiralty, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12, 13. Aban-

at the return term, it must appear by the record
donment.

that the writ was executed 14 days before the re-

turn day. Dobynes 1. United States, (241) 427
CAVEAT-1.
See Kentucky, 2.

COLLECTOR—4.
CAVEAT-3.

1. A collector selling land for taxes must act in

conformity with the law from which his power is
A general dismissal of the plaintiff's caveat, in

derived, and the purchaser is bound to inquire
Kentucky, does not purport to be a judgment upon

whether he has so acted. It is incumbent on the
the merits. Wilson v. Speed, (283) 441

vendee to prove the authority to sell.

Stead v. Course,
CERTIORARI-3.

(403) 660

2. By the tax laws of Georgia for the years 1790
A certiorari will be awarded upon a suggestion and 1701, the collector was authorized to sell land
that the citation has been served, but not sent up only on the deficiency of personal estate; and then
with the transcript of the record.

to sell only so much as was necessaray to pay the
Field v. Milton,

(514)

516

taxes in arrear. Under those laws the sale of a

whole tract, when a small part would have been
CHANCERY-1.

sufficient to pay the taxes, was void. Id. (10.) 660
See Absent Debtor. Equity.

3. A collector of the revenue of the United

States, after his removal from office, has no au-
CHANCERY-3.

thority to collect duties outstanding at the time
1. A decree for the sale of mortgaged property.

of his removal; but this power and duty devolves

upon his successor.
on a bill to foreclose, is a final decree, and may be

Sthreshley v. United States, (169) 584
appealed from. Ray v. Law,

(179) 404
2. A plea in bar to a bill in chancery, denying

COLUMBIA DISTRICT-1.
only part of the material facts stated in the bill, is
not good. A mere denial of facts is proper for an 1. A justice of peace in the District of Columbia
answer, but not for a plea.

is not removable at the will of the President.
Milligan v. Milledge,

(220) 417
Marbury v. Madison,

(160)

69

[ocr errors]

GENERAL INDEX.

2. The acts of Congress of 27th February, and

CONFISCATION-4.
8d March, 1801, concerning the District of Colum- 1. The act of Georgia confiscating the estate of
bia, have not changed the laws of Maryland and the mortgageor is no bar to the claim of the mort.
Virginia, adopted by Congress as the laws of that
district,' any further than the change of jurisdic- questered during the war.

gagee, a British merchant, whose debt was only se-

The estate of the mort-
tion rendered a change of those laws necessary. gageor only was confiscated, not that of the mort.
United States 1. Simme,

(252) 98

gagee.
3. Fines, forfeitures and penalties, arising from Higginson v. Mein,

(416) 664
a breach of those laws, are to be sued for, and re-

2. If a confiscating act, independent of the
covered, in the same manner as before the change treaty, would be construed to destroy the claim of
of jurisdiction, mutatis mutandis. Id. (Ib.) 98

a British mortgagee, the treaty reinstates the lien
See Adininistrator.

in its full force; and a subsequent sale could only
COLUMBIA-2.

pass it with its burden.
Higginson v. Mein,

(419) 665
1. The inhabitants of the District of Columbia,
by its separation from the states of Virginia and

CONNECTICUT—4.
Maryland, ceased to be citizens of those states re-

1. See Foreign Attachment, 2. Covenant, 2.
spectively. Reily v. Lamar et al., (344) 300
2. By the insolvent law of Maryland of 3d of

CONGRESS-1.
January, 1800, the Chancellor of Maryland could

1. Congress have not the power to give original
not discharge a citizen of Maryland who resided in jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of the United
the District of Columbia at the time of its separa: States, in other cases than those described in the
tion from Maryland, unless the insolvent had com constitution.
plied with all the requisites of the law, so as to en-

Marbury 1. Madison,

(176) 73
title himself to a discharge before that separation.

2. An act of Congress repugnant to the constitu-
Id.
(16.) 300 tion, cannot become a law.

Id.

(Ib.) 73
3. A citizen of the District of Columbia cannot
maintain an action against a citizen of Virginia in ferred from one inferior tribunal to another.

3. A cause may, by act of Congress, be trans-
the circuit court of the United States for the dis-

Stuart v. Laird,

(299) 115
trict of Virginia ; but a citizen of the district of 4. Congress may constitutionally imposé upon
Virginia may maintain an action against a citizen

the judges of the Supreme Court of the United
of the District of Columbia, in the circuit court of States, the burden of holding circuit courts.
the United States for the District of Columbia.

id.

(Ib.) 115
(445) 332
Hcpbuin et al. 4. Ellzey,
4. A citizen of the District of Columbia is not a

CONSTITUTION--.1.
citizen of a state, within the meaning of the consti- 1. The Supreme Court of the United States has
tution of the United States. Id.

(16.) 332 | not the power to issue a mandamus to a Secretary

of State of the United States, it being an exercise
COLUMBIA-4.

of original jurisdiction, not warranted by the con-
1. The right of Virginia to legislate for that part stitution, notwithstanding the act of Congress.
of the District of Columbia which was ceded by her

Marbury v. Madison,

(137) 60
to the United States conticued until the 27th of 2. An act of Congress repugnant to the constitu-
February, 1901.

tion cannot become a law. Id.

(176) 73
Young e. Bank of Alexandria, (384) 655 3. The courts of the United States are bound to
See Appeal, 4.
take notice of the constitution.

Id.

(178) 73
4. A contemporary exposition of the constitu-
COMMISSION—4.

tion, practiced and acquiesced under, for a period
1. The certificate of commissioners named in aof years, fixes its construction.
dedimus, that they took, in due form of law, the

stuart v. Laird,

(299) 115
oath annexed to the commission, is sufficient evi. 5. Congress may constitutionally impose upon
dence of that fact.

the judges of the Supreme Court of the United
Grant v. Naylor,

(224) 603 States the burden of holding circuit courts.

Id.
2. It is not necessary to give notice to the oppo-

(16.)

115
site party of the time and place of executing the

CONSTITUTION>2.
commission.

A citizen of the District of Columbia is not a
Grant 1. Naylor,

(224) 603

citizen of a state, within the meaning of the con-
3. If the return of the commission be inclósed in
an envelope which is sealed, no other sealing by stitution of the United States.
the commissioners is necessary. Ib. (225) 603

Hepburn et al. v. Ellzey,

(445) 332
4. If, after a commission has issued, the parties

CONSTKUCTION-1.
have leave to amend, and a new issue be made up,
similar in substance to the former issue, the deposi-

See Constitution, 4. Act of God.
tions taken under such commission may be used at
the trial of the new issue. Ib.

(232) 605

CONSULS—2.

The certificate of a consul of the United States
COMMITMENT—4.

under his seal, is not evidence of a foreign law.
1. A person may be committed for a crime by

Church' v. Hubbart,

(236) 265
one magistrate upon an affidavit made before an-
other.

CONTINUANCE_4.
Er parte Boilman and Swartwout, (76) 555

1. The refusal of the court below to continue a
2. Quare, whether upon a motion to commit a

cause after it is at issue, cannot be assigned for
person for treason, an affidavit stating the sub-

error. Woods & Bemis v. Young, (237) 607
stance of a letter in possession of the deponent be
admissible evidence? Id.

(Ib.) 555

CONTRACT--1.
COMMON LAW-4.

See Agent. Public Admiralty, 10. Bills of Ex-
1. Courts which originate in the common law change, 22. Chose in action.
possess a jurisdiction which must be regulated by
their common law, until some statute change their

CONTRACT–3.
established principles; but courts which are creat-

1. The court has the exclusive power of deciding
ed by written law, cannot transcend that jurisdic-

whether a written contract be usurious.
tion. Er parte Bollman and Sučarticout, (93)

(181)
Levy v. Gadsby,

403
2. For the meaning of the term habeas corpus

2. He who sells property on a description given
resort may be had to the common law; but the
power to atard the writ by any of the courts of the by himself, is bound in equity to make good that

(270)
description. M'Ferran v. Taylor,

436
United States must be given by written law.

(93, 94)
Id.

3. On a contract to deliver flour, its value is to
561

be ascertained on the day when it ought to have
3. Quære, whether, upon an indictment for trea-

445
son, proof of procurement can, in this country, by been delivered. Douglas i. M'Allister, (298)
force of the common law, be admitted in evidence

CONTRACT 4.
to establish a charge of personal presence.
United States v. Burr, Appendix, (502) 700 1. A court of equity will annul a contract which

the defendant has failed to perform, and cannot
COMMISSION-1.

perform on his part.
See Mandamus, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15.

Skillern v. May,

(137)

727

560

574

2. A letter of credit, directed by mistake to John

COURTS-2.
and Joseph, instead of John and Jeremiah, and de-
livered to John and Jeremiah, who furnished goods risdiction between citizens of the United States, un-

1. The courts of the United States have not ju-
upon the faith of it, does not constitute a contract

less the record expressly states them to be citizens
between the writer of the letter and John and Jere-

of different states.
miah, to whom it was delivered, and parol proof

Wood 1. Wagnon,
cannot be admitted to make it such.

(9) 191
Grant v. Naylor,

Capron v. Van Noorden,
(224) 603

(126) 229
3. The promise to pay the debt of another must jurisdiction in that court to which he has chosen

2. A plaintiff may assign for error the want of
be in writing, and cannot be explained by parol. to resort. Id.

(126) 229
Id.

(235) 606

3. A party may take advantage of an error in
4. B in Philadelphia, agreed to pay to A's agent his favor, if it be an error of the court.
in Amsterdam, 170,000 guilders on the first of

Id.
March, and if he should fail so to do, then to re-

(Ib.) 229
pay to A the value of the guilders at the rate of have jurisdiction in cases of salvage, where all the

4. The courts of admiralty of the United States
exchange current in Pbiladelphia at the time de parties are aliens, if the jurisdiction be not ob-
mand of payment should be made, together with jected to. Mason t. Blaireau,
damages at 20 per cent. in the same manner as if

(240) 266

5. Quare, whether the United States courts of
bills of exchange had been drawn for that sum, and

common law have jurisdiction where all the parties
they had been returned protested for non-payment, are aliens? Bailiff v. Tipping,

(406) 320
and lawful interest for any delay of payment which 6. The question of forfeiture of a vessel under
might take place after the demand. B paid the
170,000 guilders in Amsterdam to the agent of A miralty and maritime jurisdiction.

the act of Congress against the slave trade is of ad.
on the 13th of May, instead of the 1st of March.

United States v. Schooner Sally, (406) 320
A is not entitled to the 20 per cent. damages, but 7. The circuit court of the United States for the
may, in a suit upon the bond given to perform the District of Virginia, has not jurisdiction in cases
contract, recover interest on the 170,000 guilders between citizens of Virginia and citizens of the
from the 1st of March to the 13th of May.

District of Columbia.
United States v. Gurney,

(333)
638

Hepburn et al. v. Ellzey, (445) 332
CONVENTION WITH FRANCE-1.

COURT-3.
See Admiralty, 13.

1. The court has the exclusive power to decide

whether a written contract be usurious.
COPARTNERS-4.

Levy 0. Gadsby,

(181) 405
See Assignee, 1.

2. The court, upon a jury trial, is bound to give

an opinion if required, upon any point relevant to
COPPER-4.

the issue. Dougla88 v. Mi’Allister, (298) 445
1. Round copper bars, round copper plates, and
sound copper plates turned up at the edges, are not

COURT MARTIAL-3.
subject to duty upon exportation.

1. The court martial of the District of Columbia
United States v. Kyd & Watson, (1) 531

has not exclusive cognizance of the question who
COPY--1.

are subject to militia duty, and its sentence is not

conclusive upon that point.
The keeper of a public record cannot refuse a

Wise v. Withers,

(331) 457
copy to a person demanding it in the terms pre- 2. The court martial who impose a fine upon a
scribed by law. Marbury v. Madison, (161) 68 man, not liable to militia duty, are equally tres-

passers with the officer who distrains for such
COPY-4.

fine.
Id.

(Ib.) 457
Sey Evidence, 2.

COURTS OF UNITED STATES 4.

1. The district courts of the United States are
CORPORATION-1.

courts of prize, and have power to carry into effect
See Assumpsit, 3, 4.

the sentences of the old continental courts of ap-
Quære, whether an action on a policy of Insur- peal in prize causes.
ince will lie against the Marine Insurance Com-

Jennings v. Carson,

(2) 531
pany of Alexandria, in their corporate name, or

2. The practice of the district courts of the Unit:
whether the declaration must be against the Presi-

ed States as courts of admiralty is not regulated
dent alone?

by law. Ib.

(24) 538
Insurance Company of Alexandria v. Young,

3. When both parties are aliens the courts of the
(332) 126

United States have not jurisdiction.
Montalct 1. llurray,

(46) 545
CORPORATION-2.

4. If it does not appear upon the record that the
A corporate body can act only in the manner pre- suit might have been maintained in the courts of
scribed by the act of incorporation, which gives it the United States between the original parties to a
existence. It is the mere creature of law, and depromissory note, no suit can be maintained upon it
rives all its powers from the act of incorporation. in those courts by a subsequent holder. Id. (16.) 545
Head et al. v. Providence Insurance Company, 5. The court is bound to give an opinion to the

(127) 229 jury on a question of law, upon request, if it be
COSTS--1.

pertinent to the issue; but not if it involve a ques.
tion of fact. Smith v. Carrington,

533
Quære, whether costs can be awarded against the

6. If the complainant be a citizen of France, and
United States ? United States v. Simms, (259) 100

the defendant a citizen of the state of Georgia, the
United States v. Hooc,

(318) 121

circuit court of the United States for the district of

Georgia has jurisdiction, although the complainant
COSTS--3

and defendant are executors, and their testators
1. Costs are not to be awarded against the Unit- respectively were citizens of the state of Georgia.
ed States. United States 1. Hooe, (73) 370

Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, (308) 630
2. In Virginia, if the first ca sa. be returned 7. See Appeal, 3, 4.

Habeas Corpus, 1.

Juris
non est, the second may include the costs of issu- diction, 5, 6.
ing both. Peyton v. Brooke, (92)

376

8. If two citizens of the same state, in a suit in
3. Costs will be allowed on the dismissal of a a court of their state, claim title under the same
writ of error for want of jurisdiction, if the orig- act of Congress, the Supreme Court of the United
inal defendant be also defendant in error.

States has appellate jurisdiction from the highest
Winchester V. Jacksont,

(515) 516 state court to which the question can be carried.
4. If errors are not assigned, according to the

Matthcus V. Zane,

(382) 654
rule of court, the writ of error may be dismissed 9. The district judge may alone hold a circuit
with costs. General Rule,

(239) 425 court, although there be no judge of the Supreme
5. If the plaintiff in error does not appear, the Court aliotted to that circuit.
defendant may have the writ of error dismissed

Pollard v. Duight,

(421) 666
with costs. Montalet v. lurray, (249) 429

COUNSELORS-1.
COSTS-4.

Counselors shall not practice as attorneys.
1. Costs are not given upon a reversal of judg-

Rules of Court,

(xvi)

11
ment.

Their oath and qualifications. Id. (10.) 11
Montalet v. Murray,
(47) 545 May be admitted as attorneys. Id.

(xvii) 11

(71)

4. Writ of error, how to be returned by the clerk 4. The proceedings of a Portuguese court, under
below. Rules of dourt,

(xvii) 11 the seal of a person who states himself to be Secre.
5. If the writ of error issues within 30 days be- tary of Foreign Affairs in Portugal, is not evidence.
fore the meeting of the court, the defendant in

Id.

(16.) 249, 263
error may enter his appearance, and proceed to 5. If the decrees of the courts in the l'ortuguese
trial, otherwise the cause must be continued. colonies are transmitted to the seat of the Portu-
Id.

(xviii) 11 guese government, and registered in the department
6. Where the writ of error appears to be brought of state of that government a certificate of that
for delay only, the judgment shall carry interest at fact under the great seal of Portugal, with a copy
10 per cent. per annum, by way of damages. In of the decree authenticated in the same manner,
other cases 6 per cent. ገ id.

(ib.) 11 would be sufficient prima facie evidence.
7. A writ of error does not lie from the Supreme

Id.

(Ib.) 249, 265
Court of the United States to the general court for
the Territory N. W. of the Ohio.

EVIDENCE—3.
Clark v. Bazadone,

(212) 58 1. If usury, be specially pleaded, and the court

reject the evidence offered upon the special plea, it
ERROR--2.

may be admitted upon the general issue.
1. A plaintiff may assign for error the want of

Levy v. Gadsby,

(180) 404
jurisdiction in that court to which he has chosen

2. The court has exclusive power to decide
to resort.

whether a written contract be evidence of usury,
Capron v. Van Noorden, (126) 229

Id.

(Ib.) 404
2. A party may take advantage of an error in his

3. A report of surveyors that a vessel is unsound,
favor, if it be an error of the court.

is not evidence that she was not seaworthy when
Id.

(10.) 229 she commenced the voyage.
3. The citation must accompany the writ of

Marine Ins. Co. v. Wilson, (187) 406
error, or it will be dismissed.

4. Quære, whether such report, even if it related
Bailiff v. Tipping,

(406) 320 to the commencement of the voyage, is conclusive
4. It is no error that the decree is for pounds,

evidence? Id.

(Ib.).

406
shillings and pence sterling.

5. The assignee of a pre-emption warrant is a
Telfair v. Stead,

(414) 322 competent witness if his testimony does not tend
5. It is no error that the decree does not ap-

to support the title of the party producing him.
portion the amount among those defendants who

Wilson v. Speed,

(283) 441
have assets, unless it appears that the whole as-

6. Notice to an attorney at law of the time and
sets in the hands of all the defendants are more

place of taking a deposition, is not sufficient under
than sufficient to pay the plaintiff's debt.

the law of Virginia.
Id.

(Ib.) 322
Buddioum 1. Kirk,

(293) 444
7. The deposition must be taken at the time noti-
ERROR_3.

fied; an adjournment from the 12th to the 19th
If errors are not assigned according to the rule of is not an adjournment from day to day.
court, the writ of error will be dismissed with

Buddicum v. Kirk,

(293) 444
costs. General Rule,

(239) 425 8. Evidence of wheat delivered is good on the
ERROR
plea of payment. Id.

(16.) 414

9. An assignment of debts cannot be given in evi.
1. See Writ of Error, 1, 2. Appeal, 4.

dence under the plea of accord and satisfaction.
2. The refusal of the court below to continue a

id.

(10.) 444
eause, after it is at issue, cannot be assigned for 10. A bill of parcels stating the goods as bought
error. Woods & Bemis v. Young, (237) 607 of D. & I. is not conclusive evidence that D. & I.

3. Quare, whether a writ of error will lie to the were joint owners of the goods.
refusal of the court below to quash an execution

II arris v. Johnston,

(311) 450
upon motion ? Mountz o. Hodgson, (324) 635 11. The sentence of a court martial is not con-

clusive evidence that a man is liable to militia duty.
ESCROW-4.

Wise v. Withers,

(331) 457
1. A bond may be delivered by a surety to the 12. A foreign sentence of condemnation as good
principal obligor, as an escrow.

prize, is not conclusive evidence that the legal title
Pawling v. United States, (219) 601 to the property was not in the subject of a neutral
2. If one of the obligors, at the time of execut- nation. Malay v. Shattuck,

(458) 498
ing the bond, says in the presence of some of the
other obligors, "we acknowledge this instrument,

EVIDENCE-4.
but others are to sign it;" this is evidence from 1. A witness interested in certain admitted items
which the jury may infer a delivery as an escrow, of the plaintiff's account, is still a competent wit-
by all the obligors who were then present.

ness to prove other items.
(16.) 601
Smith v. Carrington,

(62) 550
EVIDENCE-1.

2. The defendant having read a letter from the

plaintiff's agent in answer to a letter from himself,
See Admiralty, 5, 6, 12.

cannot give in evidence a copy of his own letter,
1. Proceedings before magistrates in cases of in- without proving it to be a true copy by a witness.
solvent debtors, under the laws of Virginia, are

(Ib.) 550
matters in pais, and may be proved by parol testi- 3. If improper evidence be admitted by the
mony. Turner v. Fendall,

(132) 58 judge, it is error, and this court cannot inquire into
2. See Error, 2, 3.

its importance, or operation. Id. (70) 553
3. A commission is only evidence of an appoint- 4. Quære, whether a foreign sentence of condem-
ment. Varbury v. Vadison,

(178) 73

nation be conclusive evidence in an action against
4. Quare, whether the drawer is a competent the underwriters?
witness for the indorser in an action against the Fitzsimmons v. Newport Ins. Co. (185) 591
latter? Wilson v. Lennow,

(195) 79 5. The appraisement made under the order of the
5. The want of possession of goods by the vendee, district judge by three sworn appraisers, is not
under an absolute bill of sale, is not merely evi- conclusive evidence of the value, in a question of
dence of fraud, but is a circumstance per se which jurisdiction, but is better evidence than the opin-
makes the transaction fraudulent in point of law. | ion of a single witness examined viva voce in open
Hamilton v. Russell,

(309) 118

court. United States v. Brig Union, (216) 600
6. Evidence on motion to discharge bail, must be 6. After deciding the question of value upon the
by deposition, and not viva voce.

weight of the evidence, the court will not continue
Rules of Court,

xvii the cause for the party to produce further evi-
EVIDENCE-2.
dence as to the value. Id.

(16.) 600

7. Upon a demurrer to evidence, the testimony is
1. To induce a presumption of payment from the to be taken most strongly against him who demurs ;
age of a bond, 20 years must have elapsed exclusive and such conclusions as a jury might justifiably
of the period of the plaintiff's disability.

draw, the court ought to draw.
Dunlop & Co. v. Ball,

(180) 246

Pawling v. United States, (219) 601
2. Foreign laws must be proved as facts. They 8. See Escrow, 2.
must be verified by oath, or by some other high 9. A letter of credit, addressed by mistake to:
authority which the law respects not less than an John and Joseph, instead of John and Jeremiah,
oath, Church v. Hubburt, (187, 236) 249, 265 and delivered to John and Jeremiah is not evidence

3. The certificate of a consul of the United of a contract between the writer of that letter
States under his seal is not evidence of a foreign and John and Jeremiah.
law. Id.
(16.) 249, 285 Grant . Nasrior,

(224) 603

Id.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »