not resemble this in any prominent feature, except that the policy contained the same clause, and the defence was attempted under the protection of it. But neither in the evidence nor in the pleadings, did the Insurance defendants bring themselves within the provisions of Company. the clause.
This Court is therefore of opinion, that there was no error in the decision of the Court below. But an inconsiderable omission (made palpable by the briefs furnished by both parties) having been committed in copying the record, and which leaves it doubtful in what form this decision is to be certified to the Court below, this Court will, for the present, order a certiorari to issue, that the correction may be duly made. Certiorari awarded.
3. Actual possession is not necessary to give the party the benefit of the treaty; but the existence of title at the time is necessary. Id. 545 4. Where J. D., an alien and British subject, came into the United States subsequent to the treaty of 1783, and, before. the signature of the treaty of 1794, died, seised of the lands in question: Held, that the title of his heirs was not protected by the treaties. Id. 544 5. In what cases citizenship may be presumed so as to confirm a title to lands. Id. 545
CASES COMMENTED ON. 1. Penalty on fiquidated damages. Fletcher v. Dycke, 2 T. R. 52. distinguished from Tayloe v. Sandiford, 18 2. Commitment for contempt. Cros- by, Lord Mayor of London, 3 Wils. 188 confirmed in Ex purte Kearney,
3. Lien of vendor for u p id
pur- chase money. various cases on the subject of, commented on, distinguished, confirmed, overruled, in Bailey v. Green- leaf, 51 57 4. Local Law Decision of this Court in Matthews v. Zane, 5 Cranch, 92. revised and con- firmed in S. C. 208 5. Conclusiveness of decree Brown v. Gilman. ante, vol IV. p. 255. reconciled with Brown v. Jack-. son, 240
6. Exemption of public ships from foreign jurisdiction The Cas- sius, 3 Dall. 121. The Invinci- ble, ante, vol. I. p. 238. and The Exchange, 7 Cranch, 116. commented on in The Santissima Trinidad, 350 7. Patent. Evans v. Eaton, ante, vol. III. p. 454. explained and confirmed in S. C. and Evans v. Hettich, 427. 431. 468 8. Practice in Real Actions. Green v. Watkins, unte, vol VI. 260.
Law of Vendors, 304. examined, and questioned ld.
6. It is a rule, both of law and equity, that a party must re- cover on the strength of his own title, and not on the weakness of his adversary's. Watts v. Lind- sey's heirs, 158. 161 7. The decree must conform to the allegations in the pleadings, as well as the proofs in the cause. Crocket v. Lee, 522. 525
See LOCAL LAW, 3. 28, 29, 30. PRACTICE, 1.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
1. This Court has anthority to issue a habeas corpus, where a person is imprisoned under the warrant or order of any other Court of the United States. Ex parte Kearney, 38. 41 2. But this Court has no appellate
jurisdiction in criminal cases, confided to it by the laws of the United States and cannot revise the judgments of the Circuit Courts, by writ of error, in any case where a party has been convicted of a public offence. Id. 41 3. Hence the Court will not grant a habeas corpus, where a party has been committed for a con. tempt adjudged by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Id. 41 4. In such a case, this Court will not inquire into the sufficiency of the cause of commitment. Id. 41
5. The case of Crosby, Lord Mayor of London, 3 Wils. 188. com: mented on, and its authority confirmed. Id. 6. A commitment for a contempt by a Court of competent juris- diction. in the exercise of its ju- risdiction, is conclusive, and can- not be inquired into in any other tribunal. Id. 41 7. Where a party claiming title to lands under an act of Congress, brought a bill for a conveyance, and stated several equitable cir- cumstances in aid of his title, and the State Court where the suit was brought having dis- missed the bill, and the cause being brought to this Court by appeal, under the 25th sec. of the judiciary act of 1789, c. 20., upon the ground of an alleged misconstruction of the act of Congress under which the title was claimed, by the State Court: Held, that this Court could not take into consideration any dis- tinct equity arising out of the contracts or transactions of the parties, and creating a new and independent title, but was con- fined to an examination of the plaintiff's title as depending upon
the construction of the act of Congress. Matthews v. Lane, 164. 206 8. Note on the exten: of the appel- late jurisdiction of this Court ir cases arising in the State Cou^: under the constitution, treatie and laws of the Union. Note 20..
1. In general, a sum of money i gross, to be paid for the non performance of an agreement is considered as a penalty, and not as liquidated damages. Tay- loe v. Sandiford, 2. A fortiori, when it is expressly reserved as a penalty. Id. 17 3. Thus, where in a building con- tract, the following covenant was contained: The said houses to be completely finished on or before the 24th of December next, under a penalty of 1000 dollars, in case of failure;" it was held, that this was not in- tended as liquidated damages for the breach of that single cove- nant only, but applied to all the covenants made by the same party in that agreement; that it was in the nature of a penalty, and could not be set off in an ac- tion brought by the party to re- cover the price of the work. Id.
« ՆախորդըՇարունակել » |