of land as the United States may have sold of the land adjudged to belong to him;
the precise quantity must be ascertained by the decree; and it is to this end, in
part, that the act requires those in possession of any part of the land claimed by the
petitioner, to be made parties. United States v. Moore, 12 H. 209....106.
15. Though the amendatory and repealing clauses of the acts of May 23, 1828, (4
Stats. at Large, 284,) and May 24, 1828, (4 Stats. at Large, 298,) do not require
adverse claimants to be made parties to a petition, yet the act of June 17, 1844, (5
Stats. at Large, 676,) which revived and extended the act of 1824, does not incor-
porate those provisions in either of these acts of 1828, and, proceeding under this
act of 1844, adverse claimants must be made parties. Ib.
16. Grants made by the French authorities in Louisiana, after the date of the treaty of
Fontainbleau, (8 Stats. at Large, 200,) held void, unless continued possession laid a
foundation for presuming a confirmation by the authorities of Spain, in which case,
as the titles would be complete and legal, a remedy is not afforded by the act of May
26, 1824, (4 Stats. at Large, 52,) but the titles are to be tried in the usual modes,
under the laws and practice of the State. United States v. Pillerin, 13 H. 9. ... 355.
17. Petition dismissed without prejudice. Ib.
18. A petition to confirm a Spanish title in Louisiana, under the act of May 26, 1824,
(4 Stats. at Large, 52,) must contain an allegation of the residence of the grantee in
Louisiana, at the date of the grant, or previous to March 10, 1804; and the title
shown must not be a complete title. United States v. Castant, 12 H. 437 · · · ·228.
19. The act of May 26, 1824, (4 Stats. at Large, 52,) revived by the act of June 17,
1844, (5 Stats. at Large, 676,) limits the right to file a petition under a French o
Spanish grant, to two years from the passage of the latter act. United States
Porche, 12 H. 426....223.
20. Though the commandant of the port of New Madrid, in upper Louisiana, had
power, as the deputy of the Spanish governor of the province, to enter into a con-
tract to grant lands in consideration of the introduction of a colony, &c., and though
the facts set forth in his order as the motives of the agreement must be taken as
true, yet, before the grantee could apply for a title in form, he must, according to
the laws and usages of Spain, have complied with the conditions which formed the
consideration of the grant; and as the United States have succeeded to the rights
and duties of the Spanish crown, touching this subject, the applicant, who has failed
to perform those conditions, cannot demand a title from the United States, under
the act of May 26, 1824, (4 Stats. at Large, 52,) revived by the act of June 17,
1844, (5 Stats. at Large, 676.) Glenn v. United States, 13 H. 250....480.
21. The time allowed by the United States for performance of such conditions in grants
of this character, did not run after the date of the act of March 26, 1804, (2 Stats.
at Large, 287, § 14,) and it was competent for the political department of the gov-
ernment thus to limit the time. 16.
22. The principles of the preceding case, Glenn v. United States, 13 H. 250, applied
to this case, and the petition dismissed. De Villmont's Heirs v. United States, 13 H.
23. The petition of the appellees, founded on a British grant, dismissed, because, if any
title was made thereby, it was a complete legal title, and the district court had not
jurisdiction under the act of May 26, 1824, (4 Stats. at Large, 52,) as revived by
the act of June 17, 1844, (5 Stats. at Large, 676.) United States v. McCullagh, 13
H. 216....465.
24. Under the act of May 20, 1826, (4 Stats. at Large, 179,) granting lands for the
support of schools, the secretary of the treasury had power to decide, as between
the school trustees for a township and one claiming under a private entry, whether
the land in question had been duly selected and set apart for the schools of the
township; and his decision was final. Campbell v. Doe, 13 H. 244....477.
LIEN, 1.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 4; Contract, 2.
A paper found on the files of the court in a case, purporting to show how notice was
given in that case, but contradicting the entry on the record that due notice was
given, is not a part of the record, nor entitled to any effect. Sargeant v. State Bank
of Indiana, 12 H. 371....190.
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, 9; EVIDENCE, 1. 2. 13-15; EXCEPTIONS, 3.
RESCISSION OF CONTRACT.
CONTRACT; MISTAKE.
1. Though generally, the name by which an article is known in commerce, is taken to
include that article in a revenue law, yet, by a course of legislation, it may be made
apparent that congress did not intend to include a particular article under a name,
which, among commercial men, would include it. De Forest v. Lawrence, 13 H. 274
.495.
2. This principle applied to dried sheepskins, having the wool on, under the act of
July 30, 1846, (9 Stats. at Large, 42.) Ib.
3. Under the tariff act of July 30, 1846, (9 Stats, at Large, 44, sched. B,) glass tum-
blers, having the entire surface or bottom smoothed, or polished, or their sides fig-
ured or ornamented by cutting, or grinding, are "glass cut," and subject to a duty
of 40 per centum ad valorem. Binns v. Lawrence, 12 H. 9... . 7.
4. Under the tariff act of July 30, 1846, (9 Stats. at Large, 42,) only the quantity of
brandy imported, not that shown by the invoices, is dutiable; but as this act lays
upon it an ad valorem duty, the allowance for leakage of two per centum of quantity
gauged, cannot be made under the 59th section of the collection act of 1799,
(1 Stats. at Large, 672,) because that law applied only to liquors subject to duty by
the gallon. Lawrence v. Caswell, 13 H. 488....612.
5. Under the warehousing act of August 6, 1846, (9 Stats. at Large, 53,) an importer
had not a right, as soon as the law was passed, and independently of any regulations
by the secretary of the treasury, to land his goods at the port of delivery to which
they were destined, and store them there, on giving such bonds as that act required.
Tremlett v. Adams, 13 H. 295....507.
6. The act was confined to ports of entry, until extended by the action of the secretary,
to ports of delivery. 1b.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1-3; COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, 14.
RIGHT TO BEGIN.
EXCEPTIONS, 2.
DEED, 1-4; EQUITY, 1; EXECUTION; JUDGMENT, &c.; LIEN; MORTGAGE, 1-4. 8;
PRIZE, 2-6; SLAVES; TAXES; Trust, 1.
SCIRE FACIAS.
BAIL; EXECUTION.
LIMITATIONS OF SUITS, 1. 2.
1. Damage done to cotton thread, by dampness of the hold of the vessel, not occasioned
by bad stowage, or any negligence of the master, or mariners, is an "accident of
navigation," within the exception in a bill of lading. Clark v. Barnwell, 12 H. 272
....130.
2. If damage be done by an accident, or peril, excepted in the bill of lading, the ship-
per must primâ facie bear the loss; but he may impose it on the master or owners,
or on the vessel, by proving that the negligence of the master, or mariners, made the
excepted peril or accident operative on his goods. Ib.
8. If it is usual to carry salt as part of the cargo of a general ship, it is not negligence
to take it on board; and the owner of goods, liable to be injured by its presence in
the hold, must bear the loss occasioned thereby, if there was no bad stowage, and no
inquiry made by the shipper, before the goods were put on board. 1b.
4. A carrier is not responsible for the consequences of delay of the voyage not attrib-
utable to misconduct of his servants. Ib.
5. A bill of lading, containing the usual clause, " shipped in good order, &c.," and
adding "contents unknown,” acknowledges only the fair external appearance of the
packages, and the burden is on shipper to prove the condition of their contents when
they came on board. Ib.
6. A question of fact as to the cause of damage to goods in the hold of a vessel. Rich
v. Lambert, 12 H. 347....171.
The statute of Mississippi, of June, 1822, respecting the sale of slaves brought into that
State, does not make void a note given for the price of such slaves. Harris v. Run-
nels, 12 H. 79....38.
Damages, 3. 4; FUGITIVES FROM SERVICE; Mortgage, 7.
Upon a bill for specific performance of a contract to convey land, held, that the com-
plainant was not entitled to a decree. 1. Because he had shown no performance or
offer to perform, on his own part. 2. Because an agreement to convey in consid-
eration of payments to be made out of the profits of the vendor's lands, was not a
contract which a court of equity would enforce. 3. That the complainant had
abandoned and released his claim. Dorsey v. Packwood, 12 H. 126....61.
EQUITY, 1.
BILL OF CREDIT; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1-3; COURTS OF THE UNITED
STATES, 15-17.
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, 6-13, 15-17; POST-OFFICE, &c. 3.
Though by the fundamental law of a territory its legislation is to be subject to the dis-
approval of congress, yet till disapproved it is valid and operative; it does not owe
its effect to the action of congress thereon, so as to become an act of congress,
Miners' Bank of Dubuque v. Iowa, 12 H. 1..........1.
CONSTITUTIONAL Law, 4; COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, 3; CUMBERLAND
ROAD; FUGITIVES FROM SERVICE; Indiana; Revenue Laws, 1. 2.
STATUTES OF THE U. S. REFERRED TO IN THIS VOLUME.
1789, August 7, Lighthouses, &c. 1 Stats. at Large, 53.
1789, September 29, Process in Courts of the United States. 1 Stats. at Large, 93.
Pennsylvania v. Wheeling Bridge Co. 13 H. 518.621
1790, April 30, Crimes against the United States. 1 Stats. at Large, 112.
United States v. Reid, 12 H. 361..
1790, July 20, Government of Seamen in Merchant Service. 1 Stats. at Large, 131.
Cooley v. Board of Wardens of Philadelphia, 12 H.
1791, February 4, Admission of Kentucky into the Union. 1 Stats. at Large, 189.
Pennsylvania v. Wheeling Bridge Co., 13 H. 518....621
1792, March 23, Pensions. 1 Stats. at Large, 243.
United States v. Ferreira, 13 H. 40.
...United States v. Ferreira, 13 H. 40..
1792, May 8, Process in Courts of the United States. 1 Stats. at Large, 275.
Pennsylvania v. Wheeling Bridge Co. 13 H. 518....621
1793, February 12, Fugitives, &c. 1 Stats. at Large, 302.
Norris v. Crocker, 13 H. 429.
1793, February 18, Enrolling vessels, &c. 1 Stats. at Large, 305.
Pennsylvania v. Wheeling Bridge Co. 13 H. 518.... 621
1793, February 28, Invalid Pensions. 1 Stats. at Large, 324.
United States v. Ferreira, 13 H. 40. .
1794, June 5, Crimes against the United States. 1 Stats. at Large, 381.
Williams v. Oliver, 12 H. 111.
1797, March 3, Accounts with the United States. 1 Stats. at Large, 512.
United States v. Hodge, 13 H. 478.
1798, April 7, Limits of Georgia. 1 Stats. at Large, 549.
Howard v. Ingersoll, 13 H. 381.
|