LIST OF CASES. American Fur Company vs. The United States, Anderson, Boyce vs. 358 150 Ashley et al. The Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky vs. 327 Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky vs. Ashley et al. Bank of The United States vs. Carneal, Bank of The United States vs. Venable et al. Bank of The United States, Williams vs. Beach vs. Viles, Beatty et al. vs. Kurtz et al. Black Bird Creek Marsh Company vs. Wilson, Boyce vs. Anderson, Buckner vs. Finley et al. Butler, Harper vs. . 671 327 - 318 492 - 543 121 - 527 331, Canter vs. The American and Ocean Insurance Company, Carneal, The Bank of the United States vs. Chirac et al. vs. Reinecker, Campbell's Executors vs. Pratt et al. City Council of Charleston vs. Weston et al. Collins, Gardner vs. Columbian Insurance Company vs. Lawrence, Conolly vs. Taylor et al. Corcoran, The Bank of the United States vs. Darnall, Le Grand vs. Dialogue, Pennock et al. vs. Dudley's heirs, The Bank of Hamilton vs. English et al. vs. Foxall, 481 Lawrence, The Columbian Insurance Company vs. Le Grand vs. Darnall, Leland et al., Wilkinson vs. Le Roy et al. vs. Johnson, Matthewson, Satterlee vs. Owens, The Bank of the United States vs. Pacard, Van Ness et al. vs. Patterson vs. Jenckes, Pennock et al., Dialogue vs. Post Master General vs. Southwick et al. Pratt et al., Campbell vs. Reinecker, Chirac et al. vs. Reynolds vs. M'Arthur, Riggs, Mandeville et al. vs. Ritchie vs. Mauro, Satterlee vs. Matthewson, Southwick et al., The Post Master General vs. Sumrall, Townley vs. Sweeney, The Bank of Columbia vs. Taylor et al., Conolly vs. Townley vs. Sumrall, Tolmie, Thompson vs. Thompson vs. Tolmie, 556 - 170 157 - 157 Viles, Beach vs. Twentyman, Jackson et al. vs. United States, The American Fur Company vs. Van Ness et al. vs. Pacard, Venable et al., The Bank of the United States vs. Washington's Executors, Dandridge vs. Weisiger, The Bank of the United States vs. 136 - 358 137 - 107 675 - 370 331, 481 Weston et al. vs. The City Council of Charleston, Wister et al., The Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky vs. 318 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Hon. JOHN MARSHALL, Chief Justice. Hon. BUSHROD WASHINGTON, Associate Justice. Hon. SMITH THOMPSON, Associate Justice. WILLIAM WIRT, Esq. Attorney General. WILLIAM THOMAS CARROLL, Esq. Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States. TENCH RINGOLD, Esq. Marshal. The Hon. John M'Lean was appointed an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, on the 7th day of March 1819, in the room of the Hon. Robert Trimble, deceased. Mr Justice M'Lean did not take his seat during the term. The following Gentlemen were admitted to practice at the Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, at January Term 1829. James Smith, Hugh S. Legaré, Henry N. Cruger, New York. South Carolina. South Carolina. Sampson Mason, Samuel F. Vinton, M.C. Samuel S. Nicholas, Trevanion B. Dallas, Eli Kirk Price, Joseph H. Bradley, Henry R. Storrs, M.C. Michael Hoffman, M.C. Richard A. Buckner, M.C. H. Daniel, M.C. Samuel A. Talcott, J. Johnson, R. C. Mallary, M.C. C. J. Jack, C. B. Penrose, J. C. Hornblower, Theo. Frelinghuysen, M.C. Frederick De Peyster, Jun. John Varnum, M.C. Nathan Nathans, John W. James, Ohio. Ohio. Kentucky. Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania. Washington, D. C. Delaware. New York. New York. Washington, D. C. New York. Georgetown, D. C. Kentucky. Tennessee. Kentucky. New York. Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania. Massachusetts. THE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AT JANUARY TERM 1829. ABRAHAM L. PENNOCK & JAMES SELLERS, PLAINTIFFS IN ERRor vs. ADAM DIALOGUE. The record contains, embodied in the bill of exceptions, the whole of the testimony and evidence offered at the trial of the cause by each party in support of the issue. It is very voluminous, and as no exception was taken to its competency or sufficiency, either generally or for any particular purpose; it is not properly before this court for consideration, and forms an expensive and unnecessary burthen upon the record. This Court has had occasion, in many cases, to express its regret on account of irregular proceedings of this nature. There was not the slightest necessity of putting any portion of the evidence in this case upon the record; since the opinion of the court, delivered to the jury, presented a general principle of law; and the application of the evidence to it was left to the jury. [15] It is no ground of reversal, that the court below omitted to give directions to the jury upon any points of law which might arise in the cause, where it was not requested by either party at the, trial. It is sufficient for us, that the court has given no erroneous directions. [16] If either party considers any point presented by the evidence, omitted in the charge of the court, it is competent for such party to require an opinion from the court upon that point. The court cannot be presumed to do more in ordinary cases, than to express its opinion upon questions, which the parties themselves have raised on the trial. [16] It has not been, and indeed it cannot be denied, that an inventor may abandon VOL. II.-A |