spondence to a jury, when it refers to material extrinsic facts, yet the question,
whether a letter of advice, which accompanied a bill, showed, on its face, a drawing
against a particular consignment, was for the court. Turner v. Yates, 16 H. 14....
Where coordinate liens are obtained by one judgment in a State, and another in a
United States court, the seizure by a sheriff, under an execution on the state judg-
ment, gave priority to the lien of that judgment. Pulliam v. Osborne, 17 H. 471
EQUITY, 1; INSOLVENT; SHIPS, &c. 4.
1. Under the 15th section of the limitation laws of Texas, if the possession of two or
more persons in succession, holding in privity with each other, under title or color
of title, makes out the prescribed term, the bar is complete, though no one has held
for the whole required time; and the 14th section of that law, has no effect upon the
15th section. Christy v. Alford, 17 H. 601....717.
2. The saving clause in the New York act, limiting writs of right, does not allow for
cumulative disabilities. Thorp v. Raymond, 16 H. 247. ...113.
BANKRUPT, 3; MORTGAGE; WRIT OF RIGHT.
LOG ROLLING.
CRIMINAL LAW.
INSOLVENT; PUBLIC LANDS, 11-14; WRIT OF ERROR, 3.
1. A mandamus should not be granted to compel the superintendent of public printing
of the houses of congress, to place a document in the hands of the printer of the sen-
ate, instead of in the hands of the printer of the house of representatives. United
States v. Seaman, 17 H. 225....470.
2. A writ of mandamus should not be issued to the secretary of the treasury command-
ing him to pay to a judge of a territory his salary for the unexpired term of the office
from which he had been removed by the President, and another person appointed
thereto. United States v. Guthrie, 17 H. 284....506.
3. To supersede the execution of a decree for the foreclosure of a mortgage, the mort-
gagor must give security for the whole amount decreed to be due; and where he
failed to do so, and the court below refused to execute the decree, a peremptory
mandamus was awarded. Stafford v. Union Bank of Louisiana, 17 H. 275....505.
4. The decision in the preceding case of Stafford and Wife v. The Union Bank of
Louisiana, again affirmed. Stafford v. New Orleans Canal and Banking Company,
17 H. 283....506.
MASSACHUSETTS.
SEA; WRIT OF Right.
1. Though the master of a steamboat is, primâ facie, the agent of the owner to do only
what is usually done by such masters in such employment, yet different employments
may and do have different usages, and thus confer on masters different powers. And
where it was usual to permit persons whose employment was on board such boats, to
go from place to place free of charge, a person so carried was held to be lawfully on
board, and that for an injury done to him by culpable negligence in the management
of the steam, the owners were liable in damages. Steamboat New World v. King,
16 H. 469....260.
2. The theory of the three degrees of negligence examined. Ib.
3. If an employment requires skill, failure to exert it is culpable negligence, for which
an action lies. Ib.
4. Under the 13th section of the act of July 7, 1838, (5 Stats. at Large, 306,) if a per-
son is injured on board a steamboat by the injurious escape of steam, it is incumbent
on the owners, in an action against them, to prove there was no negligence. Ib.
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH.
Upon a bill in equity by several travelling preachers of the Methodist Episcopal
Church South, in behalf of themselves and the other travelling preachers of that
organization, held,
1. That as numerous parties had a common interest in the fund in controversy, a few
might sue, representing the others.
2. That the General Conference, in 1844, had power to consent to the division of the
Methodist Episcopal Church into two bodies, and that the separation was not a seces-
sion of a part of the travelling preachers from that church, but a division, in pursu-
ance of proper authority.
3. That this division carried with it, as matter of law, a division of the common prop-
erty, which belonged to the travelling preachers, as such.
4. That the removal of the sixth restrictive article, was not a condition to the enjoy
ment by the Church South of its share of the common fund, but to enable the Gen-
eral Conference to make the division.
5. That as the complainants not only represent the other travelling preachers South,
but the "Book Concern" there, the share of the fund they thus represent may
properly be paid over to them. Smith v. Swormstedt, 16 H. 288....137.
MEXICAN CLAIMS; PUBLIC LANDS, 15-18.
Though the award of commissioners under the act of March 3, 1849, (9 Stats. at Large,
922,) passed to carry into effect the convention between the United States and Mex-
ico, does not finally settle the equitable rights of third persons to the money awarded,
yet it makes a legal title to the person recognized by the award as the owner of the
claim; and if he also has equal equity, his legal title cannot be disturbed. Judson
v. Corcoran, 17 H. 612....727.
MISSOURI.
PUBLIC LANDS, 6-8.
Twenty years possession under a de facto foreclosure of a mortgage, is a bar to redemp-
tion, even though the proceedings to foreclose were not regular, unless the mort-
gagor accounts for the delay, and shows that he has a valid right to redeem. Slicer
v. Bank of Pittsburg, 16 H. 571....301.
ADMIRALTY, 2; APPEAL, 2; COVENANT; MANDAMUS, 3. 4.
NEW YORK.
LIMITATIONS OF SUITS, 2.
NONSUIT.
JUDGMENT, &c. 3.
PARENT AND CHILD.
ASSIGNMENT, 3.
1. To a bill to charge a legacy on land of a married woman, she is a necessary party.
Lewis v. Darling, 16 H. 1....1.
2. If this court find a case has merits, but no decree can be made for want of a neces-
sary party, the cause will be remanded to have such party made. Ib.
EQUITY, 10-16; METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH; PARTITION; SHIPS, &c. 1.
Bill in equity to set aside a partition on the ground of fraud. The record was so
defective in respect to parties and evidence, that the decree of the district court,
dismissing the bill, was affirmed. Coy v. Mason, 17 H. 580....697.
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH.
1. Where a patentee invented an apparatus for breaking coal, and combined it with
an apparatus for screening coal which he did not invent, and took a patent for the
combination only, and afterwards took a patent for the breaking apparatus, and then
surrendered both patents and took one for the breaking apparatus alone; held, that
his describing and not claiming the breaking apparatus in his first patent, and the
surrender and cancellation of the second, did not deprive him of his right to a
patent for the breaking apparatus. Battin v. Taggert, 17 H. 74....378.
2. A question of fact as to the date when a machine was constructed. Troy Iron and
Nail Factory v. Odiorne, 17 H. 72....376.
ACTION, 2; COSTS, 2; DAMAGES, 2–7.
PENNSYLVANIA.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 5.
An indictment for perjury need not refer to the act of congress which required the
oath in question to be taken; it should aver the facts which constituted the occasion
for taking the oath, and the court will take notice of any act of congress which
required it. United States v. Nickerson, 17 H. 204....458.
Where the facts put in issue, by an assignment of a breach of a sheriff's bond, have
been once tried on an issue made up according to a law of the State, they cannot
be again drawn in question; and as it is a question of law, on comparison of the
records, whether they were in issue, a replication which attempts to put this ques-
tion to the jury, is bad. Chapman v. Smith, 16 H. 114....48.
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, 5-8; SHIPS, &c. 1.
ABATEMENT; COSTS; EQUITY, 10-18; EXCEPTIONS; JUDGMENT, &c. 5. 6; PAR-
TIES; STATE; UNITED STATES; WRIT OF Error.
BOND, 1; DAMAGES, 7; EVIDENCE, 4; JUDGMENT, &c. 4; SEA, 2.
1. The mere possession of public land is no title against a grantee under the United
States. Burgess v. Gray, 16 H. 48....25.
2. The state courts have no jurisdiction to try, or give any effect to, an inchoate French
or Spanish title. Ib.
3. The act of March 3, 1807, (2 Stats. at Large, 440,) did not grant legal titles; it
only enabled claimants of inchoate titles to obtain patents. Ib.
4. The act of April 12, 1814, (3 Stats. at Large, 121,) confirmed only titles which had
been rejected merely for want of evidence of inhabitancy on the 20th of December,
1803; and as it does not so appear, in reference to the plaintiff's title, he can take
nothing under that act. Ib.
5. A decree, confirming an inchoate Spanish title, made by this court, on appeal in
1836, upon a petition originally filed in 1824, did not relate back so as to devest a
title gained from the United States under an entry made in 1834. This would be
inconsistent with the second section of the act of May 24, 1828, (4 Stats. at Large,
298.) McCabe v. Worthington, 16 H. 86....39.
6. Under the act of March 3, 1807, (2 Stats. at Large, 440,) a claimant of land in
Missouri obtained no title to any particular tract, simply by a decision of commis-
sioners that he had a title to an unlocated tract. A survey was necessary, in order
to designate the land to which his title should attach. West v. Cochran, 17 H. 403
7. Under the act of congress of June 12, 1812, (2 Stats. at Large, 748,) respecting
town and village lots, out lots, &c., in Missouri, it was not necessary that the claim-
ant of an out lot should have had, either under the French or Spanish authorities,
or from the United States, any written recognition of his title, or any public survey;
nor was he required by the supplementary act of 1824, (4 Stats. at Large, 65,) to
present the evidence of his claim and have it recognized. He might do so, and thus
estop the United States and those claiming under them by subsequent grant; but
he might also rely on proving the facts, made needful to his title by the act of 1812,
through parol evidence, if his possession should be disturbed. Guitard v. Stoddard,
8. Under the acts of 1812, (2 Stats. at Large, 748,) and 1824, (4 Stats. at Large, 65,)
concerning town and village lots in Missouri, it was not competent for the re-
corder to give a certificate of confirmation in 1839, and thereby devest a title
already acquired under the United States. Gamache v. Piquignot, 16 H. 451....
9. The grant of lands in Florida by the king of Spain to the duke of Alagon, whether
it takes date from the royal order of December 17, 1817, or from the grant of Feb-
ruary 6, 1818, and whether the title was held by him or his assignee, is annulled by
the treaty between the United States and the king of Spain, signed February 22,
1819, by virtue of the declaration to that effect, made by the President of the
United States, on presenting the treaty for an exchange of ratifications, and assented
to by the king in writing, and again ratified by the senate of the United States.
Doe v. Braden, 16 H. 635....327.
10. Whether the king of Spain had power thus to annul a grant, is a question, fore-
closed, in every judicial tribunal of the United States, by the action of the Presi
dent and senate, treating with him as having that power. Ib.
|