Page images


[ocr errors]

court of the

Rodney, Attorney-General.


THE No appeal lies from that court directly to this is a case where that court acts in the capacity of a lion, does not district court. In such cases the appeal is expressly lie directly to given to the circuit court for the district of Massa- the supreme chusetts.

United States, but to the tir

cuit court for By the 10th-section of the judiciary act of 1789, the district of Dol1. p. 54. it is enacted that the " district court Masschusetts. in Maine district, shall, besides the jurisdiction herein where the disbefore granted, have jurisdiction of all causes (ex-trict court of

Maine acts as cept of appeals and writs of error) herein after

a district court, made cognisable in a circuit court, and shall pro- the appeal is ceed therein, in the same manner as a circuit court;

to the circuit

court for the and writs of error shall lie from decisions therein, district of to the circuit court in the district of Massachusetts,

Massachuseita. in the same manner as from other district-courts to their respective circuit courts.” And by the 21st section it is enacted, “ that from final decrees in adistrict court in causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, where the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value of three hundred dollars, exclusive of costs, an appeal shall be allowed to the next circuit court to be held in such district. Provided nevertheless, that all such appeals from final decrees as aforesaid, from the district court of Maine, shall be made to the circuit court, next to be holden after each appeal, in the district of Massachusetts.

By the act of March 30, 1803, vol. 6. p. 315.

2. it is enacted, “ that from all final judgments or decrees rendered or to be rendered in any circuit court, or in any district court, acting as a circuit court, in any cases of equity, of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and of prize or no prize, an appeal, where the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, shall exceed the sum or value of two thousand dollars, shall be allowed to the supreme court of the United States,” &c.

In this case the court below could only act in its capacity of a district court, because such causes of

admiralty and maritime jurisdiction are exclusively The U. S. cognisable in a district court.



C. Lee, contra; contended, that there was a repugnance between the act of 1789, and that of 1803, the latter declaring that appeals in such cases should be directly to the

supreme court.

But the Court was of opinion that this not being a case where the district court was acting as a circuit court, the appeal ought to have been to the circuit court of Massachusetts.

Appeal dismissed.






mitations, in favour of merchants'
accounts, extends to all accounts
current which concern the trade
of merchandise. Mandeville et al.
v. Wilson,

2. It applies as well to actions of as-

sumpsit as to actions of account.

3. An account closed is not an account
stated. Id.

4. It is not necessary that any of the

items should have been charged
within the 5 years, nor that the
declaration should aver the money
to be due upon an open account
between merchants. Id. ib.

It is not necessary, in an action of

covenant on a policy, that the decla.
ration should aver that the plain-
tiff had abandoned to the under.
writers. Hodgson V. The Marine
In. Co.




See Deeds, 1.



1. An accommorlation endorsor is lia.

ble to an action by the holder of a
note made negotiable at the bank
of Alexandria, although the maker
has not been sued nor proved in-
solvent. Yeaton v. The Bank of

2. It is no objection to the liability of

an endorsor, that he endorsed to
accommodate the. aker, Id. 50



1. The continental court of appeais in

prize causes, had the power to re-
vise and correct the sentences of
the state courts of admiralty. U.
nited States v. Judge Peters, · 115

1. The exception in the statute of li-

2. In admiralty cases, an appeal sus-

pends the sentence altogether:
and the cause is to be heard in the 1. See Account, 2.

appellate court as if no sentence

2. See Consideration, 1, 2, 3, 4,

had been pronounced. Yeaton et
al. v. United States,

3. If the law, under which the sen.

tence of condemnation was pro-
nounoed, expire after sentence in

See Admiralty, 4.

the court below, and before final
sentence in the appellate court, no

sentence of condemnation can be
pronounced, unless some special

provision be made, for that pur.
pose, by statute. Id.

4. If errors appear upon the face 1. Suits brought by the bank of Alex-

of the report of auditors, it is not andria upon promissory notes made
necessary to except. Himely v.

negotiable at that bank, açe enti:


tled to trial at the return term of
5. If the property ordered to be re- the writ. Foung v. The Bank of
stored, be sold, interest is not to Alexandria,

he paid. Id.

ib. 2. The Bank may maintain a suit
6. See Jurisdiction, 1. 17. 373 against the endorsor of such a note

without having sued the maker, or

proved his insolvency. \ readen v.

The Bank of Alexandria,


3. See accommodation, 1, 2. 49
1. The corporate town of Alexandria

has power to tax the lots and
lands of non-residents. Alexander

v. The Mayor, &c. of Alexandria, 1
2. It is not necessary that the lots

1. See Citizen, 1, 2.

57. 61
should be half-acre lots. Id. 2 See Jurisdiction, 4.

3. Those taxes cannot be recovered 2. The Bank of the United States de

by motion, if the owner has per. rived no authority from its charter
sonal property in the town which to sue in the courts of the United
may be distrained. Id.

ib. States. Bank of The United States
4. Alexandria Bank. See Bank of Alex-

v. Deocaux.


45. 49


1. Under the bankrupt law of the Uni-
See Jurisdiction, 13.


ted States, a joint debt may be set
off against the separate claim of the

assignee of one of the partners ;

but such set-off could not have

been made at law, independently
See Error, 4.


of the bankrupt law. Tucker v.


2. A joint debt may be proved under

a separate commission, and a full
See Admiralty, 1, 2, 3. 115. 281

dividend received. It is equity
alone which can restrain the joint

creditor from receiving his full di-

vidend until the joint effects are

exhausted. Id.
See Plene Adminiftravit,


3. In distributing the effects of *

[ocr errors]


bankrupt in this country, the Uni. a feme sok, intermarries, after the
ted States are entitled to a prefer- judgment, and before the service
ence, although the debt was con- of the writ of error, the service of
tracted by a foreigner in a foreign the citatpn upon the husband is
country, and although the United suflicient. Fairfax v. Fairfax, 19
States should have proved their 2. The cout will not compel a cause
debt under the commission of bank. to be heard, unless the citation be
ruptcy, and should have voted for served 30 days before the first day

an assignee. Harrison v. Sterry, 289 of thie term. Welch.y. Mandeville:
4. Under a separate commission of

bankruptcy against one partner,
only his share of the joint effects

passes. Id.

$. The bankrupt law of a foreign coun-

1. A corporation aggregate cannot be
try cannot operate a legal transfer

a citizen, and cannot litigate in the
of property in this country. Id. ib.

courts of the United States un.

less in consequence of the cha.

racter of the individuals who

compose the · body politic, which
1. If insurance be “ against all risks, character must appear, by proper

blockaded ports and Hispaniola ex. averments, upon the record. The
cepted," a vessel, sailing ignorantly Hope In. Co. v. Boardman, 57
for a blockaded port, is covered by Bank of United States v. Deocaux, 62
the policy. Yeaton v. Fry,


2. A corporation aggregate, composed
2. A vessel sailing ignorantly to a of citizens of one state, may sue

blockaded port is not liable to cap- a citizen of another state in the
ture under the law of nations. circuit court of the United States.

ib. Bank of United States v. Dedeaux, 61
3. See Jurisdiction, 13.


A bond cannot be delivered to one of
the obligees as an escrow.

Moss v.

1. In a suit against the endorsor of a


promissory note, who endorsed to

give credit to the maker, the con-

sideration moving from the en.

dorsee to the maker, upon the cre-
If a defendant in ejectment set up an

dit of the endorsor, is a good con.
outstanding title in a British sub-

sideration to support the assumpsis
ject, which he contends is protect.

against the endorsor. Yeaton v.
ed by the British treaty, this is

Bank of Alexandria,

not such “a case arising under a

2. To constitute a consideration, it is
treaty," as will give to the supreme

not necessary that a benefit should
court of the United States appellate

accrue to the promissor; it is suf.
Jurisdiction of a case decided by

ficient that something valuable
the highest court of a state, under

flows from the promissee, and that
the 25th section of the judiciary

the promise is the inducement to
act. Owings v. Vorwood's Lessee,

the transaction. Violett v. Pulion,

3. Under the statute of frauds of Vir.

ginia it is not necessary that the
consideration should be expressed

in writing. That statute only re-

quires the promise to be in wri.
ting. Id.

1. If the defendant below, who was 4. The endorsement of a promissory


« PreviousContinue »