1846, May 13, War with Mexico. 9 Stats. at Large, 9.
Fleming v. Page, 9 H. 603...
1846, February 11, Collectors, &c. 9 Stats. at Large, 3.
Hoyt v. United States, 10 H. 109....
1847, February 23, Judiciary (Florida.) 9 Stats. at Large, 131.
Benner v. Porter, 9 H. 235.
1847, March 3, Admission of Wisconsin into the Union. 9 Stats. at Large, 178.
McNulty v. Batty, 10 H. 72.
1848, February 22, Judiciary, 9 Stats. at Large, 211.
McNulty v. Batty, 10 H. 72..
1848, May 29, Admission of Wisconsin into the Union. 9 Stats. at Large, 233.
Preston v. Bracken, 10 H. 81.
83. 1. 2. 4. 6, pp. 233, 234... McNulty v. Batty, 10 H. 72.
1851, March 3, Appraisement of Merchandise. 9 Stats. at Large, 629.
·Greely v. Thompson, 10 H. 225..
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, 22; WRIT OF ERROR, 8.
EQUITY, 3; PLEADING, 1-3; POST-OFFICE, &c. 3.
1. The charter of the Baltimore and Port Deposit Railroad Corporation, taken in con-
nection with the acts of assembly of Maryland, Delaware, and Pennsylvania, which
united that and two other companies, into one corporation, did not exempt from
taxation the property which belonged to the first-mentioned corporation. Phila-
delphia and Wilmington Railroad Company v. Maryland, 10 H. 376....425.
2. Notwithstanding the act of May 26, 1825, (4 Stats. at Large, 75,) where several lots
belonging to the same person, are put up for sale for non-payment of taxes, the cor-
poration of Washington can sell only so many lots as may bring enough to pay the
entire taxes on all the lots; a sale of each lot for the tax due thereon is illegal. Mason
▾ Fearson, 9 H. 248....130.
TERRITORIAL COURTS.
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, 14-20.
BANKRUPT; CONSTITUTIONAL Law, 1.
TREASURY TRANSCRIPT.
EVIDENCE, 7.
1. It is in accordance with the laws of nations, and has been affirmed by each depart-
ment of this government, that the treaty of San Ildefonso took effect on the day of
its date, October 1, 1800; so that the Spanish governor of Louisiana could make no
valid grant of a franchise to keep a ferry after that day. Davis v. Police Jury of
Concordia, 9 H. 280....139.
2. The second article of the treaty with Portugal, of August 26, 1840, (8 Stats. at
Large, 560,) did not restrict either party from laying discriminating duties on mer-
chandise not the growth or production of the nation of the vessel carrying the saine
into the port of the other nation; and the provision in schedule I. of the tariff act of
July 30, 1846, (9 Stats. at Large, 49,) exempting tea and coffee from duty, when
imported direct from the place of their growth or production, in American vessels,
or in foreign vessels entitled by reciprocating treaties to be exempt from discriminat
ing duties, tonnage, and other charges, does not apply to such articles, when imported
in Portuguese vessels. Oldfield v. Marriott, 10 H. 146 ...328.
3. The treaty of Paris, ceding Louisiana to the United States, took effect on the day
of its date, April 30, 1803; its subsequent ratification and the formal transfer of pos-
session have relation to that date. United States v. Reynes, 9 H. 127. ...65.
ASSIGNMENT, 1; COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, 6. 7; PUBLIC LANDS, 1. 15-19;
22-24.
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, 27; UNITED STATES, 2.
. One who went into possession of a lot, under a contract with a person, having an
inchoate Spanish title, and agreeing to do what was needful on the part of the
grantee, to complete that title, for their joint benefit, could not, while thus in posses-
sion, purchase in and set up an outstanding title, to defeat that under which he had
entered. What he thus purchased enured to their joint benefit. Hallett v. Collins,
10 H. 174....349.
2. The distinction between an executory agreement to create certain trusts in futuro,
and an executed agreement or settlement which actually defines and creates them
in præsenti, recognized; but an ante-nuptial agreement, in this case, was held to
create trusts, and that collateral kindred might have the aid of a court of equity to
compel their performance, though no trustee was interposed between the husband
and wife. Neves v. Scott, 9 H. 196....98.
1. If the United States is defrauded out of a patent, it can, like any other proprietor,
maintain a bill in equity to set it aside. United States v. Hughes, 11 H. 552..........
2. The United States, being a body politic, with power to acquire and hold property,
is entitled to the remedies provided by law for its protection, and among others to
the action of trespass quare clausum for entering on their lands, and cutting their
trees. Cotton v. United States, 11 H. 229....607.
3. A bill in equity to enjoin the United States, cannot be entertained. Hill v. United
States, 9 H. 386....189.
MANDAMUS; PLEADING, 5; Revenue Laws, 1; Set-off.
A verdict in a suit to try the title to slaves, which merely finds "for the plaintiff
$1,200, the value of the four negroes in suit," will not warrant a judgment. Ben-
nett v. Butterworth, 11 H. 669....757.
1. A dedication of land for a public highway cannot be presumed, where the land in
question was part of a wharf, was kept open and used as a passage-way to a ware-
house on the wharf belonging to the owners of the land in question, and they used
the land at their pleasure to pile merchandise thereon, and paid taxes therefor as
on the residue of the wharf. Irwin v. Dixion, 9 H. 10... ·6.
2. A dedication of land to a public use is made by an intent of the owner to dedicate
it, sufficiently manifested by some act or declaration by him; and where such intent
cannot be found, no declaration is made. Ib.
DEVISE, &c.; EVIDENCE, 2. 3.
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, 19. 20.
1. A judgment of a circuit court rendered on an agreed statement of facts, may be re
examined here by a writ of error. Stimpson v. Baltimore and Susquehanna Railroad
Company, 10 H. 329....412.
2. A judgment against two out of three joint defendants, all of whom were served, the
third not being in any way disposed of, is irregular, not final, nor the foundation of
a writ of error; and if one be brought, it must be dismissed, and the case remanded.
United States v. Girault, 11 H. 22....535.
3. A writ of error is not brought, until filed in the court to which it is addressed, and
whose record is to be removed by it; and, therefore, though the writ is tested within five
years, if it be not filed in the court which rendered the judgment, till after the ex-
piration of that period, it is barred. Brooks v. Norris, 11 H. 204....597.
4. The bar of a writ of error by the statute of limitations, may be taken advantage of
in this court on motion.
5. A writ of error may be directed to any court which has the custody of the record,
and can certify it, though not the court which rendered the judgment, provided no
difficulty exists respecting the execution of a mandate from this court.
Webster v.
6. Where a writ of error has been taken out by the plaintiff, a rule on him to file the
transcript of the record will not be granted. Boyd v. Scott, 11 H. 292....628.
7. Where the death of the plaintiff in error was suggested and leave given to make
proper parties in 1846 - this not being done, at the December Term, 1850, the writ
was abated, and the cause remanded. Phillips v. Preston, 11 H. 294. · · ·628.
8. A second writ of error, sued out more than ten days after the entry of judgment,
cannot operate as a supersedeas. Hogan v. Ross, 11 H. 294....629.
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1-9. 13. 15-22. 24. 25; EXCEPTIONS.
|