Page images
PDF
EPUB

1822.

Dorr

V.

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.

The Pacific

INDEX

то

THE PRINCIPAL MATTERS

IN THIS VOLUME.

[blocks in formation]

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

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

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

43

or

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.

[blocks in formation]

Law of Vendors, 304. examined,
and questioned ld.

50

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

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..

See JURISDICTION.

COVENANT.

13 17

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.

[blocks in formation]
« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »