Слике страница

for debts collected for Nixdorff & Hager, to, & Hager was thereby discharged from liability which he added five thousand nine hundred to the payment of their debts, and the burand seventy-five dollars and thirty-two cents, den of paying them devolved upon Nixdorff. for Nixdorff's half of the goods, making the A course of reasoning leading to conclusions 90 whole amount of credits forty-six thousand much at variance with law and justice, is an. three hundred and fifty-one dollars and ninety: swered by merely stating it. two cents; leaving a balance due from Nixdorff This singular error originated in charging & Hager to Hager & Smith of four thousand Nixdorff with the five thousand dollars paid six hundred and forty dollars and sixty cents. by Smith, on account of the whole purchase, The amount of the debt due from Hager & and then refusing to charge Hager & Smith Smith to Nixdorff, for which Smith was sued, with the whole amount of the partnership being four thousand eight hundred and seventy effects in their hands, originally belonging to four dollars and forty-five cents, the auditor Nixdorff & Hager. The very moment that deducted the balance found due from Nixdorff Nixdorff was charged with this sum of five & Hager, from that sum, and reports a balance i thousand dollars, the payment of it by Smith finally due to Nixdorff of two hundred and was neutralized, and the transaction between thirty-three dollars and eighty-five cents; and the parties stood as though no payment had excludes Hager's half of the goods, included been made. The only consideration left, there135*] in the inventory, entirely *from the fore, to support the sale by Nixdorff to Smith, account, on the ground that they were not sub was the undertaking of Hager & Smith, in the ject to the debts of Nixdorff & Hager.

written contract, to pay the debts of Nixdorit To this part of the report the defendant ex- & Hager. In this aspect of the case, the liability cepted. But the court overruled the exception, of all their effects in the hands of the former, confirmed the reformed report of the auditor, to the payment of the debts of the latter, can. and decreed that the injunction should be made not be doubted. By the first report of the perpetual, except for the sum of two hundred auditor it appears that he settled the accounts and thirty-three dollars and eighty-five cents, between the parties, upon the principles here as reported by the auditor.

suggested, that is, by charging Hager & Smith A very brief examination of the case will test with the whole inventory of the goods and the the correctness of this decree. The equity, set money collected for Nixdorff & Hager, and by up in the complainant's bill, rests entirely on charging Nixdorff with the money paid by the assumption that, upon a full and fair settle. Hager & Smith, in discharge of the debts of ment of accounts, under the contract referred Nixdorff & Hager, and also with the five thou. to, a large balance would be found against sand dollars paid to him by Smith. And upon Nixdorff; and upon the apparent establishment this statement of the accounts, as already of this fact, is the decree founded. If, how. shown, a considerable balance appears in favor ever, it be shown that, instead of Nixdorff being of Nixdorff & Hager. indebted to Hager & Smith, on such settlement, But the auditor afterwards, it appears, be. they are largely indebted to him, the bill will came a convert to the doctrine of the complain. be without equity, and the decree of course ant's counsel, and, in his reformed report, exerroneous. By bringing into the accounts all cluded Hager's part of the goods from the the effects of Nixdorff & Hager, the auditor's settlement altogether; and thereby created a first report shows, very satisfactorily, a con- seeming balance in favor of Hager & Smith, to Biderable balance in favor of Nixdorff.

nearly the amount of their debt to Nixdorff, on But the complainant's counsel seems to have which the suit at law was brought. This state. taken up the idea that the five thousand dollars ment of the accounts by the auditor in his first paid by Smith to Nixdorff applied exclusively report, as far as it has been here examined, is to the payment of Nixdorff's half of the goods; perfectly correct, and ought to have been con. and that the legal effect of the payment was to firmed by the court. The equity set up in the release Hager's half of the goods from liability bill, depending entirely on the truth of tho to the debts of Nixdorff & Hager: and this allegation that the balance would be in favor principle was recognized by the auditor in his of Hager & Smith, upon such settlement of the reformed report, and by the court in their de. accounts; "the balance being clearly (137 cree, notwithstanding the allegations in the established against them, and in favor of Nixcomplainant's bill, and the stipulations of the dorff, extinguishes, therefore, all pretense to contract, show clearly that the five thousand any equitable set-off in favor of Smith. dollars were paid upon the purchase of the

The decree of the Circuit Court is therefore whole of Nixdorff's interest. Whether the reversed, the injunction dissolved, and the payment was special or general, is not material bill dismissed. to the merits of the case, but it is very material in considering the effect ascribed to it in the court below. For, if the payment had the *JOHN H. RANDOLPH, Executor of (*188 power to release Hager's part of the goods

Algernon S. Randolph, Deceased, Plaintiff in from liability, because Nixdorff had sold to

Error, Smith his part of them, and received part of the purchase money, it must necessarily have ISRAEL BARRETT, Executor of Joel F. the same effect if it applied to the sale and pur. chase of the whole of Nixdorff's interest. The

Randolph, Deceased, Defendant in Error. fact being that Nixdorff did sell the whole of his Amendment-striking out "administrator" and interest to Smith, and received the five thousand inserting "executor"-default after plea in dollars in part payment of the whole, to carry abatement. 138*) out the principle assumed, the *whole

Amendment. The defendant, in the Circuit of Hager's interest in the firm of Nixdorff Court of Mississippl, was sued and declared against



[ocr errors]

u the administrator of Algernon 8. Randolph. He entered his appearance to the sult, and 10 person court, on the 14th day of November, 1839, the

Afterwards, at the November Term of the administrator of Algernon 8. Randolph, and that following judgment was entered by the Circuit he was the only executor of Algernon S. Randolph. Court. The plaintiff appearing by his attorney, The plaintin

moved to amend the write and the and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court declaration, by striking out "administrator," etc., and inserting "executor." Leave was granted, and that the writ aforesaid has been duly executed the amendment was made. Held, that there was no error in the Circuit Court in giving leave to of the last will and testament of Algernon S.

on the defendant, John H. Randolph, executor amend.

The power of the Circult Court to authorize Randolph, deceased, and he failing to appear, amendments, when there 18 anything in the record though solemnly called, judgment was rendered Pendant admitted by his plea that he was the per for the plaintiff, Israel Barrett, administrator son liable to the suit of the plaintiff ; but averred of Joel F. Randolph, for five thousand six that he

executor not administrator. hundred and fifty-five dollars, the damages Whether he acted in one character or the other, he held the assets of the testator or intestate in having been assessed under a writ of inquiry. trust for the creditors; and when his plea was From this judgment the defendant below Bled, it became part of the record, and furnished prosecuted this appeal. matter by which the pleadings might be amended.

This amendment is not only authorized by the The case was argued by Mr. Henderson for ordinary rules of amendment but also by the the plaintiff in error. No counsel appeared for statute of the United States of 1789, sec. 82. the defendant.

N error to the Circuit Court of the United *The following errors were assigned (*140 sippi.

1. That the judgment is rendered against the A summons was issued in the Southern defendant below on default, whereas a good District of Mississippi, to John H. Randolph, and sufficient plea in abatement is interposed stuting him to be the administrator of Alger by the record, which is undisposed of by judg. non S. Randolph, deceased, to answer the de- ment or otherwise. feudant in error, Israel Barrett, the adminis- 2. It is error, That the court below extended trutor of Joel F. Randolph, of a plea of trespass to plaintiff leave to amend equivalent to a in the case, returnable to May Term, 1839. To new action, and proceeded to judgment with. this writ the marshal returned, "Executed out award of new process, or rule to plea de personally, on J. H. Randolph, April 23, 1839.” novo.

The plaintiff below, on issuing the writ, filed 3. It is error, That the judgment is rendered a leclaration against John H. Randolph, as ad. against the defendant as executor, etc., when, ministrator of Algernon 8. Randolph, deceased, as it appears by the record, he is summoned for acceptances of bills of exchange for the use and declared against as administrator. of the plaintiff's intestate; for money paid. laid

Mr. Henderson said: The latitudinous rule of out and expended; and on an account stated, amendment, given to the plaintiff in this case, amounting to the sum of five thousand dollars may not, perhaps, be successfully contested; and upwards.

but it must be a manifest error that there was On the 26th of April, 1839, John H. Ran. in fact no amendment made under the rule, and dolph, having appeared to the action, filed the yet the judgment is rendered as if the amend. following plea:

ment had been made according to the rule. 139*] *The said John H. Randolph comes We suppose it certain that leave to amend, and defends, etc., when, etc., and prays judg. specifying in what the amendment shall conment of the plaintiff's writ and declaration, be. sist, cannot be regarded as the amendment it. cause he says, that he, the said John H. Ran. self. Had the defendant further pleaded, he dolph, is not administrator of the goods and must have pleaded to the declaration, and not chattels, rights and credits, which were of to the rule of amendment. But the writ and Algernon S. Randolph at the time of his death, I declaration still remain, charging defendant as nor hath he ever administered as such upon any administrator; defendant could not, therefore, of the goods or chattels, rights or credits of the respond as executor, and must have again re. said Algernon S. Randolph, but that he, the asserted his plea of ne unques administrator. said John H. Randolph, is the only executor of So yet stands his plea; and hence we say it the last will and testament of the said Algernon is error that it has not been decided on. 8. Randolph, who has qualified as such, and Or, in the other aspect, it is error that the this he is ready to verify; wherefore he prays court has rendered judgment against the dejudgment of the said writ and declaration, and fendant as an executor, on a misrepresentation that the same may be quashed, etc.

of the fact, as appears by the record, that he At May Term, 1839, the plaintiff and defend was summoned as executor, when the writ ant being in the Circuit Court by their attor. shows differently, and upon a declaration also neys, on motion of the plaintiff's attorney, it charging him as administrator. An amend. was ordered by the court that he have leave to ment of a declaration, inserting a new name, amend his writ and declaration herein, which is a new declaration; and it is the attorney's said amendment is made accordingly by strik and not the clerk's business to make the amend. ing out the words, "administrator of all and ment. 2 Brock C. C. R. 14; 80 of amending singular the goods and chattels, rights and a bill, 3 Wash. C. C. R. 354. credits, which were of Algernon S. Randolph, The judgment does not conform to the writ at the time of his death, who died intestate," and pleadings, and cannot be made so to do in and inserting "executor of the last will and this court. testament of Algernon S. Randolph, deceased;" and thereupon it was further ordered, that this "Mr. Justice M'Kinley delivered the ['141 cause be continued till the next November opinion of the court: Term of the court aforesaid.

This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court of

the United States for the Southern District of ment; and, as the defendant appeared for the Mississippi.

purpose of pleading in abatement only, the de. The defendant in the court below was served cision of the court upon the plea put him out with a writ of summons, in an action on the of court; and for failing to appear again, and case, and a declaration was filed against him, plead to the action, judgment by default was as administrator of all and singular the goods properly rendered against him. and chattels, etc., of Algernon S. Randolph, The judgment of the Circuit Court is, there. deceased, who died intestate, etc. To which fore, affirmed. the defendant entered an appearance, and fled in person a plea in abatement, averring that the was not administrator of the goods and chattels, etc., which were of the said Algernon S. Randolph, at the time of his death, etc.; but that he, the said John H. Randolph, was the "THE UNITED STATES, Appellants, (*143 only executor of the last will and testament of the said Algernon S. Randolph, deceased, etc.

JOHN BREWARD, Appellee. Whereupon the plaintiff moved for leave to amend the summons and declaration, by striking out the words "administrator of all and Spanish land grant in Florida-insufficient desingular the goods and chattels, rights and

scription-evidence. credits, which were of Algernon S. Randolph, Florida land claim. Breward petitioned the Gog. at the time of his death, who died intestate,” ernor of East Florida, intending to establish a saw. and inserting "executor of the last will and mill to saw lumber on St. John's River, for a grant testament of Algernon S. Randolph, deceased." of five miles square of land, or its equivalent; ten The leave was granted, the amendment ordered, place designated, and the remaining six thousand and the cause continued. At the next term of acres in Cedar Swamp, on the west side of St. the court judgment by default was rendered John's River, and in Cabbage Hammock, on the

east side of the river. The governor granted the against the defendant.

land asked for, on condition that the mill should To reverse this judgment, the counsel for the be built; and the condition was complied with. On plaintiff in error relied on these grounds: First. the 27th of May, 1817, the Surveyor-General qur The Circuit Court had no authority to order the ing Little Cedar Creek, and bounded on three sides amendment of the summons and declaration, by Big Cedar Creek, including the mill. This grant there being nothing in the record to amend by and survey were confirmed.

Three thousand acres were laid off on the nortb. Second. No judgment could be rendered against ern part of the River St. John's, and east of the the defendant, until the plea in abatement was Royal Road, leading from the river to St. Mary's, disposed of. Third. Judgment by default could four or five miles from the first survey. This sur not be taken against the defendant after ap grant, was void: but the court held that the grantee

vey having been made at a place not within the pearance entered.

1s to be allowed to survey under the grant three The power of the court to authorize amend thousand acres, adjoining the survey of seven

thousand acres, it so much vacant land can be ments, where there is anything on the record found; and patents for the same shall Issue for the to amend by, is undoubted. In this case, the land, ie laid out in conformity with the decree of defendant admitted by his plea that he was the the court in this case. person liable to the suit of the plaintiff, but Cedar Swamp, west of the River St. John's, at:

In 1819, two thousand acres were surveyed in averred that he was executor and not adminis. place known by the name of Sugar Town. This trator. Whether he acted in one character or survey was confirmed. the other, he held the assets of the testator, or 1819, in Cabbage Hammock, were laid out by the

Four thousand acres, by rurvey, dated April, intestate, in trust for the creditors; and when Surveyor-General. This survey was confirmed. his plea was filed, it became part of the record,

By the eighth article of the Florida Treaty, all and furnished matter by which the pleadings 1824, by His Catholic Majesty, were confirmed: but

grants of lands made before the 24th of January, might be amended. Master v. Hurtz, 3 Maule all grants made since the time, wbed the first pro 142*] & Selwyn, 450; Barnes, "Notes of posal by His Majesty for the cession of the country Practice, 5; 1 Mass. 433. And, in addition to be vold. The survey of five thousand acres bar

was made, are declared and agreed by the treaty to these

authorities, express authority is given, ing been made at a dimerent place from the land by the 32d section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, granted, would, it confirmed, be a pew appropriato the courts of the United States, to permitdered by the Governor of Florida ; and of course 1: either of the parties, at any time, to amend any is vold, having nothing to uphold it but the act of defect in the process or pleadings, upon such the surveyor-General. Cited, 10 Peters, 309. conditions as the courts shall, in their discretion Bel for the clamant offered to introduce testimony

In the Superior Court of East Florida, the counand by their rules, prescribe. This amendment in regard to the survey of three thousand acres is, therefore, not only authorized by the ordina and the counsel of the United States withdrew his ry rules of amendment, but by the statute also. objections to the testimony. The admission of the The object of the defendant in filing the plea made.

evidence did not prove the survey to bave been

Proof of the signature of the Surveyor. was, to prove that he was not administrator, General to the return of survey, made the survey and that he was executor; and thereby to abate prima facie evidence. Cited, Mrs. Wiggins's case,

14 Peters, 346. the plaintiff's writ. The motion of the plain The proof of the signature of Agullar to the cer. tiff for leave to amend the writ and declaration, tlfcate of a copy of the grant by the Governor of 80 as to charge the defendant as executor and East Florida, authorizes Its admission in evidence; not as administrator, amounted to a confession cession.

but this does not establish the validity of the con.

To test the validity of the survey, It was of the truth of the plea; but instead of abating necessary to give it in evidence; but the survey the writ according to the prayer of that plea, did not give a good title to the land. the court granted the motion of the plaintiff, and ordered the amendment. This proceeding in quantity, errors in survey, etc.

Norr..--Land, plat, patents, murveys, pariations

See notes to 3 was a final disposition of that plea in abate. L. ed. U. 8. 693, 697; 8 L. ed. U. s. 381, 423.

[ocr errors]

The United States bave a rigbt to disprove a sur.the said alleged grant or commission was ever vey made by the Surveyor-General,, if the survey made by Governor Coppinger. on the ground does not correspond to the land granted.

2. That the alleged concession, if made, was on a condition precedent, which was never ful.

filled. 144*) *ON appeal from the Superior Court 3. That the concession, if ever made, did not of East Florida.

contemplate that the lands conceded should be The claim is founded on a petition of Brew. surveyed in four different tracts or parcels. ard, dated 23d August, 181 and an alleged 4. Tha the description the lands in the decree of Governor Coppinger thereon, dated grant are too vague to be the foundation of a the following day. The petition states that "he valid survey. intends to establish a mill to saw lumber for 5. That the plats and certificates of survey the supply of commerce and the province, which do not conform to the description of the lands he wishes to situate upon St. John's River, on in the said pretended grant. the creek known by the name of Little Cedar The case was argued by Mr. Legare, the At. Creek; and whereas said costly fabric requires torney General, for the appellants, and by Mr. to secure in lands and timber what may be suf. Wilde for the appellee. ficient to cover the great expenses which are necessary to build it, and it being all for the Mr. Justice Catron delivered the opinion of benefit of the province, he prays that there the court: may be granted to him the usual five miles The petitioner asked five miles square of land, square of land, or its equivalent, destining to being sixteen thousand acres, on Little Cedar him ten thousand acres in the neighborhood of Creek, of St. John's River, he intending to es. said place, and the remaining six thousand tablish a mill to saw lumber. Ten thousand acres in Cedar Swamp, on the west side of St. acres were asked for in the neighborhood of the John's River, and in Cabbage Hammock, on the place, and the remaining six thousand acres, in east side of said river."

Cedar Swamp, on the west side of St. John's Governor Coppinger's decree on this petition River, and in Cabbage Hammock, on the east states that, "in consideration of the benefit and side of that river. advantages whicb ought to result in favor of On the 20th of August, 1816, the Governor the province, if what the interested proposes is of Florida decreed the same, on the condition effected, the lands and permission which he the mill was built. The condition was complied solicits are granted to him; but with the ex with. press condition that he shall not have the 1. On the 27th of May, 1817, George F. Clark, absolute right to them until he erects said ma į the SurveyorGeneral of the province, surveyed chine."

for Breward seven thousand *acres, in: (*146 The original of the petition and decree were cluding Little Cedar Creek, and bounded on not produced in evidence, neither were they to three sides by Big Cedar Creek and Dunn's be found in the archives at St. Augustine; but Creek; and which includes the will. This sur. a certified copy, under the hand of Thomas de vey is valid. Aguilar, secretary of the government, whose 2. There were laid off three thousand acres handwriting was proved, stating that they were on the northern part of the river St. John's, true copies, faithfully taken from the original and east of the Royal Road, leading from the which existed in his office, was offered, and was river to St. Mary's. This survey is proved to objected to by the district attorney, and ad. lie four or five miles from the first survey, and mitted by the court.

is on Trout Creek. It was made the 28th of There was also offered in evidence plats and August, 1819. certificates of survey, made for John Breward, By the eighth article of the Florida Treaty, by George J. F. Clark, Surveyor-General: all grants of land made before the 24th of Janu.

1. Dated 27th May. 1817, for seven thousand ary, 1818, by His Catholic Majesty, were con acres of land between the branchey called Cedar firmed. But all grants made since the 24th of Creek, and Dunn's Creek, on the northern part January, 1818, when the first proposal by His of the river St. John's.

Majesty was made for the cession of the coun 2. Dated 28th August, 1819. for three thou try, are declared and agreed by the treaty to be sand acres on the northern part of the river St. null and void. This survey having been made John's, and east of the Royal Road leading from at a different place from the land granted, said river to St. Mary's.

would, if confirmed, be a new appropriation of 145*) *3. Dated 10th October, 1819, for two so much land, and void, if it had been ordered thousand acres in Cedar Swamp, on the west by the Governor of Florida, and, of course, it is part of the river St. John's, at a place known void, having nothing to uphold it but the act of by the name of Sugar Town

the Surveyor-General. So this court held in 4. Dated 19th April. 1820, for four thousand Seton's case (10 Peters, 309). The party, how acres, in Cabbage Hammock, on the east part ever, is entitled to his entire ten thousand acres of the river St. John's, and south of the branch in the neighborhood of Little Cedar Creek. The called Dunn's Creek, whicb runs from Dunn's decree confirming the three thousand acre sur Creek to the said river.

vey, is therefore reversed; and this quantity of After hearing testimony in the cause, the Su. land will be ordered by the Superior Court of perior Court made a decree in favor of the East Florida to be surveyed adjoining the seven claimants for the four tracts of land; from thousand acre survey, on vacant land; the ad. which the present appeal is taken.

dition to conform to the fourth article of the For the United States, it was contended that instructions to the Surveyor-General, of the the decree should be reversed. because

10th of June, 1811. Land Laws United States, 1. That there was not sufficient evidence that | 1004. The seven thousand acres, and the three



thousand acres will be laid down in connection | lawful on their face, they must be accredited, un. as oue ten thousand acre survey. Not more til the United States disprove them; which than one third can be bounded in front on the they have the right to do, if the survey on the river St. John's, should the claimant choose to ground does not, in fact, correspond to the land add the three thousand acres next to either side granted, although the certificate may declare it of the seven thousand acre tract adjoining the to be at the proper place. This survey is also river. The seven thousand acre survey being confirmed. three hundred and sixty chains deep, the ten The cause is, however, remanded to the thousand acres can only front one hundred and court below, to be further proceeded in, as retwenty chains.

gards the rejected survey of three thousand A motion was made to the court below, on acres. the part of the petitioner, to be permitted to in. troduce testimony in regard to the survey of three thousand acres; when offered, the counsel for the United States withdrew the objections to the introduction of the paper. 147*] *It is now insisted for complainant, *ZENAS FULTON et al., Plaintiffs in (*149 that the validity and legality of the survey was

Error, admitted; and Richard's case (8 Peters, 470), Sibbald's case (10 Peters, 323), and Seton's case MORGAN M'AFEE, Defendant in Error. (10 Peters, 309), are relied upon. These authorities, we think, do not sustain

Jurisdiction. the argument. It being necessary to establish that such a survey had been made by the Sur.

The High Court of Errors and Appeals of the veyor-General, proof of his signature was prima State of Mississippi: on a writ of error to the Cirfacie sufficient to authorize the reading of the armed a judgment of the Circuit Court, by wbich a paper; and if the Attorney of the United States title to land set up on an act of Congress of the was satisfied that the plat and certificate had United States, was held valld; thus construing the been made by that officer (about which he could right to the land, under the act.

act of Congress in favo: of the party claiming a

The party hardly be mistaken), to require proof of the against whom the decision of the Court of Appeals fact would have been useless.

was given, prosecuted a writ of error to the Su

preme Court of the United States. The writ of erThe contests of Aguilar's certificates have ror was dismissed, the court having no jurisdiebeen numerous. Nothing was required but tlon. proof of the secretary's signature to admit in

In order to give the Supreme Court of the Unit.

ed States jurisdiction in such cases, it is not suffi. evidence the copy of the concession; so this cient that the construction of the act of Congress court held in Mrs. Wiggin's case (14 Peters, 346); on the validity of the act on which the claim was but when the concession was admitted, its le founded was drawn in question. It must appear,

the decision was agaldst the right gality was not conceded by the defendant; no claimed. The power of the Supreme Court is care. such ground has been, to our recollection, as- fully defined and restricted by the Judiciary Act of sumed, nor do we think it can be assumed in 1789; and it is the duty of this court not to transregard to the survey:

cend the limits of the jurisdiction conferred upon To test its legality by it. the laws and regulations of Spain, it was necessary the court should have the survey in evi N error to the High Court of Errors and dence. It was the common case of the compe Appeals of the State of Mississippi. tency of a title paper wanting legal effect. The The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court, therefore, properly admitted the paper, court. but improperly adjudged it gave title to the Mr. Coxe, for the defendant, moved to disland.

miss the writ of error, on the ground that the 3. The next survey (dated in 1819) is for two court had no jurisdiction of the case. The thousand acres in Cedar Swamp, west of the motion was opposed by Mr. Crittenden, for the river St. John's, at a place known under the plaintiffs in error. name of Sugar Town. Had this last designation been left out, no difficulty could be raised Mr. Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinin regard to the fact that the survey had been ion of the court: located at the place granted; nor do we think This case is brought up by a writ of error this makes any difference, although a witness from the High Court of the State of Mississippi. proves he knew nothing of such a town.

A motion was made at the last term to dismiss The surveyor having described the land as the case, upon the ground that this court has laid off within the description of the grant, we not jurisdiction under the 25th section of the take the fact to be prima facie, as he certifies Act of 1789; but the argument upon the motion it; nor do we think the certificate discredited was not heard until about the close of the ses. by the further description, even should the ob- sion, when many other cases were pressing upon ject called for not be found. This survey is the attention of the court; and it was therefore therefore confirmed.

held under advisement until the present term. 4. The survey for four thousand acres (dated It appears that an action for ejectment was in April, 1819) is in Cabbage Hammock, and brought for certain lands in the State of Miswithin the grant, taking the certificate of the Surveyor-General to be prima facie true. And

NOTE.--As to jurisdiction of United States So

preme Court, where federal question arises, or this, we think, is the credit that lawfully at where is drawn lo question, statute, treaty, or Con148*] taches to it. His duties *were prestitution of United States, see notes to 2 i. ed. O. scribed by the instructions to him in 1811 (Land S. 654: 4 L. ed. U. S. 97: 6 L. ed. U. 5. 571.

Nature of decision as affecting right of review, Laws, 1034); and if his plot and certificate are Bee 63 L.R.A. 63.


« ПретходнаНастави »