Ison v. Speed, 3 Cranch, 283. Wichester v. Hackley, 2 Cranch, 342. Wiscart r. D'Auchy, 3 Dallas, 321- Y. Young (Clark v.) 1 Cranch, 181.. (Marine Insurance Company v.) 1 Cranch, 332.. 582 .494 .654 240 .597 .234 597 .492 405 .427 .392 .423 .57. DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. FEBRUARY TERM, 1790. 2 D. 399. THIS being the period prescribed by law, for holding the first term of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Judges met at New York, the seat of the Federal Government, their respective commissions were read, and they were qualified according to law. JOHN JAY, appointed Chief Justice, by a commission bearing date the 26th of September, 1789. WILLIAM CUSHING, appointed one of the Justices, 27th September, 1789. JAMES WILSON, appointed one of the Justices, 29th September, 1789. JOHN BLAIR, appointed one of the Justices, 30th September, 1789. EDMUND RANDOLPH, appointed Attorney-General of the United States, 26th September, 1789. AUGUST TERM, 1790. 2 D. 400. THE Court being met, a commission appointing James Iredell one of the Justices, bearing date the 10th of February, 1790, was read; and he was qualified according to law. Vanstophorst et al. v. The State of Maryland. 2 D. FEBRUARY TERM, 1791. 2 D. 400. THE Court met at Philadelphia, the seat of the Federal Govern ment. After qualifying a number of counsellors and attorneys, the Court adjourned, sine die. AUGUST TERM, 1791. WEST, Plaintiff in Error, v. BARNES. et al. 2 D. 401. On the first day of the term, Bradford presented to the Court a writ, purporting to be a writ of error, issued out of the office of the clerk of the Circuit Court for Rhode Island district, directed to that court, and commanding a return of the judgment and proceedings rendered by them in this cause: And thereupon he moved for a rule, that the defendant rejoin to the errors assigned in this cause. Barnes, one of the defendants, (a counsellor of the court) objected to the validity of the writ, that it had issued out of the wrong office: and, after argument, The COURT were unanimously of opinion, That writs of error to remove causes to this court from inferior courts, can regularly issue only from the clerk's office of this court. 6 Wal. 355. Motion refused. VANSTOPHORST et al. v. The STATE of MARYLAND. 2 D. 401. THE Attorney-General, Randolph, moved, on behalf of the plaintiffs, that a commission should issue to examine witnesses in Helland; to which the opposite counsel assented, although the commis · sioners were not named. But, by the COURT. We will not award the commission, till commissioners are named. This being done, the motion was granted. 2 D. 419. Oswald v. The State of New York. 2 D. FEBRUARY TERM, 1792. OSWALD, Administrator, v. The STATE of NEW YORK. 2 D. 401. SUMMONS. In this case the marshal had returned the writ served; and now Sergeant moved for a distringas, to compel an appearance on the part of the State. While, however, the Court held the motion under ad- [*402] visement, it was voluntarily withdrawn, and the suit discontinued.1 5 P. 284. AUGUST TERM, 1792. 2 D. 402. THE COURT being met, a commission, appointing THOMAS JOHNSON one of the Justices, bearing date the 7th of November, 1791, was read; and he was qualified according to law. OSWALD, Administrator, v. The STATE of NEw York. 2 D. 402. SUMMONS. Ingersoll moved for a rule on the marshal of the District of New York, to return the writ in this cause; and, after advisement, the Court granted the rule in the following terms: Ordered, That the marshal of the New York District return the writ to him directed in this cause, before the adjournment of this Court, if a copy of this rule shall be seasonably served upon him, or his deputy, or otherwise, on the first day of the next term. And that in case of a default, he do show cause therefor, by affidavit taken before one of the judges of the United States. 5 P. 284. 1 s. c. 2 D. 415; 2 D. 419. The State of Georgia v. Brailsford. 2 D. The STATE of GEORGIA v. Brailsford, et al.1 2 D. 402. An obligce having recovered a judgment on a bond, claimed by the State of Georgia under an act confiscating British debts, and execution having issued, the State filed a bill in this Court setting out its title, and a temporary injunction was granted to stay the money in the hands of the marshal until the title of the State could be tried. THIS was a bill in equity by the State of Georgia, against Brailsford, Powell & Hopton, British merchants, and James Spalding, a citizen of Georgia, the first three being the obligees, and the last the obligor, in a bond which the State claimed under an act confiscating certain debts. The bill set out the act of confiscation, and stated such facts as brought this debt within its terms. It also stated that a suit at law was brought on the bond by the obligees, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Georgia; that the State applied for leave to defend the action, which was refused and judgment rendered, and execution issued. It charged a confederacy between the obligor, and obligees, to deprive the State of the money due by the bond, and the facts were verified by an affidavit. Dallas moved for an injunction. Randolph opposed the motion. JOHNSON, J. In order to support a motion for an injunction, the ill should set forth a case of probable right, and a probable danger that the right would be defeated, without this special interposition of the Court. It does not appear to me, that the present bill sufficiently claims such an interposition. If the State has a right to the debt in question, it may be enforced at common law, notwithstanding the judgment of the Circuit Court; and there is no suggestion in the bill, though it has been suggested at the bar, that the State is likely to lose her right by the insolvency either of Spalding, the original debtor, or of Brailsford, who will become her debtor for the amount, if he receives it, when in law he ought not to receive, or retain, it. Nor does the bill state any particular confederacy, or fraud. The refusal to admit the Attorney-General as a party on the record, was the act of a competent court; and it is not sufficient barely to allege, that the defendant has not chosen to sue out a writ of error. The case might, perhaps, be made better; but as I can only know, at present, the facts which the bill alleges, and which the affidavit supports, it is my opinion, that there is not a proper foundation for issuing an injunction. I s. c. 2 D. 415; 3 D. 1. |