Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 2.djvu/198

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
This page needs to be proofread.

162 SEVENTH CONGRESS. Ssss. I. Ch. 31. 1802. N<${¢h Fangé- Sec. 7. And be it f~iu·ther enacted, That the district of North Cam.

§fled‘;f‘;)°Q,m; Ima shall be divided inte three districts, one to consist of all that pm

districts. thereof which, by the laws of the state of North Carolina, new forms the districts of Edenton and IIalifax, which district shall be called the dis.

  • ""'*

gstate of6c testator. These questions were certified to the supreme court. Bsckhouse v. Patton 5 eters 1 O. ’ _ In ah action on a bond to the United States, the judges of the circuit court of Maryland were divided in opinion as to the right of the plaintiffs to recover against the defendants as sureties for a debt due to the United States, by the Bank of Somerset. United States 1;. Robertson, 5 Peters, 641. An action of debt was brought on u promissory note in the circuit court for the district of West Ten. nessee, and the judges of the court were olpposed in opinion on question which arose on the plaintifl" dcmnrrers to the de endant’s pleas; and n so whether the overment of the citizenship of some of the pnrues to the suit was sufficient. A certidcate of this division of opinion was, by the direction of the circuit court, made to the supreme court, according to law. Kirkman v. Hamilton, 6 Peters, 20. The Judges of the circuitxcourt of North Caroline were opposed in opinion, on a question, whether the priority to which the United States are cntitled in case of u general assignment made by u debtor comprehcnds c bond for duties executed anterior to the assignment, but not payable until after the same, The qucsgion wes certified to the supreme court. United States v. The State Bank ol' North Carolina Peters 2 . ’ I3 ria; cpse }the>defepd:1nt{_w:1s indicted and convicted of robbinph the United States> mail, and beinv per one y t o resident 0 the United States, oquestion arose in e circuit court ofth U "t d S : whether the defendant should plead the (pardon. On this question the `udges of the court wreisoppiagiad iynlppinienigsnd the question was certiiie to the supreme court, for it decision. United States ·u. Wilson, cters, . This case was submitted to the circuit court on a statement of facts u reed b th plaintiff, and the district attorney of the United States, The whole of thi agreleldofizictg vvgrezlelidcdp) the record. Upon the trial and statement of facts in the cause, ccrtsin questions had occurred, on which the dppuiirpls pfdthe Judgesrvgere oppgsed csnd the points of disagreement were certified to the supreme cour or our 80181011. e court cci on the uestions ce titi d 'th., · · ' Elliott, 10 Pew", 25. q r e ,w1 one exception Ilniris p, i.,’$§LZ5EZ°L‘ §h'{°§§{3’iT`i?§ZSr§F Ef.I1E‘2“§°§.? 22 fZ`·° "‘““.i" $§'”"“‘§“° °1”¥“°' i*f£i‘° *‘°‘.} °”N°“’ "°"‘· » rm oos· eoosno the dutic charged by the collector. On the triafof the ceuiie, the judggdlafltheehdzudr dii:ri¤<ii:,tii; southern district of New York were op osed in opinion, as to the construction of the act of Con. gress, bv which the duties were claimed; and being so opposed in opinion, the question as to the pgpstruction of the law was certified to the supreme court for decision. Elliott v. Swartwout, 10 Peters, rin action of detinun was instituted in the circuit court oF West T t s ing the progress of the suit, the defendant died; and his personiniggiggensnhwghddedlndicIdisldiilss the suit, on the ground that it did not survive. 0n_ this motion, the judges of the court were divided

p;ni;p6, and the same was certified, for its decision, to the supreme court. Davis v. Braden, 10

A question, whether a plaintiff in ojcctment shall be permitted to enlar e the te m i th d`s one within the discretion of the Icourt, to which tho motion for the purpose is submittled; rdndit cedhfgtiie ggglglihinipgalggl si judges of the circuit court nre divided in opinion. Lanning’s Les- Questions respectinq the practice of the circuit court in equity cases which de end on th ‘ V. . .— . . . ‘ d dis. uretion oi the court in the np hcauon oi the r 1 hi h e 1 t th, ui e sow] the circumstances of such pzirhculur case; areuiihst vdueitidnguvnizhizch dahohfccgifihld tiurimsicdigiggh di)' opiphcén of die circuzieoairg. Eackor v. Nixon, 10 Peters, 408. , _ ques ions ccr ic ot c su reme ee rt - i tiil' · in the cause, the deed was admissiblie in evidenciziritihdlheietherizgg Zirii? leigglnivulilddlddelldixiilhgzitrldiixt and Tennessee; and whether ccrtsin evidence, which was given on the trial did or did not ce d It prove that the defendants purchased undcra particular erson. On these qluestions the 'ud ds ucietho circuit court of Tennessee were opposed in opinion · andp the same were certiiied ahd sndweied 0 6 supreme court Donn L e of Sc tt R `d t ai 0 i by the . ess o e ·v. c . · s . An notion of debt whs instituted nn an act df die lepilsiiiiadgloi York to recover certai I ' for bringing imo the state of New York certain paupers in violation of the revisions of thu paul dh, declaration set out the law of New York, and the breach of its rovisions bp the def d 6 midli 0 iunrlaut dmnurred to the declaration, and the plaintiff joined in the demurrer y Thein ul? h t? dgcourt of the southern district of New York were op osed in opinion on the uestidii·geli0tht 6 hucmt ot the legislature of New York, mentioned in the declaration, assumes to regulate edmiiridircearbietievsigxii

ypprheit pew iilcgk and foreign ports. This was certified to the supreme court City of New Yorke

1 . , e crs, .‘

  wsrs ttgr igiigiplg ulhill oflthe _Ba(pk of the United States; and the judges of the

s e enns' ‘ · · · Znipexgtstz of the Bank of the tlnited §mtes,yadd·iiizdingtidcihgiightggdthesgoiiorildlfiltciileiavdiegghtihg vided Sums E. ;:N;st;l;e gnpiiez indictment, was certified to the supreme court for itsydecision. The o inions of thd .s fth '·· · · · . gms gititrepurrei il`, ifi, ‘firn`éif§€J12§‘1‘$'§‘}SE§’$'i’ZL{?3‘E,F§ZZ,SEP‘2Z°S.."£..‘2i€’$'2.1§’Z';r°i*3,t“,i‘3i‘;§?.T}§°Y£ · i i er ei· ’ . Ulggld SMS';)' Rgfdg;l:E§ll3g¤L<€og:;;e2lé§1ted States, and the same was certified to the supreme court. ' e judges of the circu`t t FM ih g ‘ · · · - on tit mu, tm, i ja ,‘.>¥-°‘2i1L srnseiisiihd `2?.2$’w‘Z$§° ££K°.E°,£2 2$§SLT.'L.,°“cSl‘?r”3‘“** X*"°" “'°‘° court for its decision. Cycrrington at al. v. The Merchants, Ins. Co., 8 Peters, 395 I G to E supmmo