TABLE OF THE NAMES OF THE CASES, REPORTED IN THIS VOLUME. A. The Antelope, [PRIZE. INSTANCE COURT. SLAVE TRADE.] 66 Almeida, (Manro v.) [INSTANCE COURT. PRACTICE.] 473 B. United States Bank v. Halstead, [CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Bank of United States v. January, [PRACTICE.] Note a, Bank of Georgia, (United States Bank v.) [PROMISSORY NOTE. PAYMENT.] Brent v. Davis, [LOTTERY.] Brandy (sixty pipes of,) [INSTANCE COURT.] Carneal v. Banks, [CHANCERY.] Chism, (Day v.) [COVENANT. PLEADING.] 51 66 181 333 395 421 181 449 Corporation of Washington v. Young, [PRACTICE.] Columbian Ins. Co. (Janney v.) [INSURANCE.] The Dos Hermanos, [PRIZE. NON-COMMISSIONED CAPTOR.] 306 De Young, (Keplinger v.) [PATENT.] De Wolf v. Johnson, [USURY. LEX LOCI CONTRACTUS.] 367 Davis, (Brent v.) [LOTTERY.] Elmendorf v. Taylor, [CHANCERY. LIMITATION. LOCAL Halstead, (United States Bank v.) [CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. 152 497 51 150 J. The Josefa Segunda, [SLAVE TRADE ACTS. COURT.] INSTANCE 312 Johnson, (De Wolf v.) [USURY. LEX LOCI CONTRACTUS.] 367 Janney v. Columbian Ins. Co. [INSURANCE.] January, (United States Bank v.) [PRACTICE.] Note a, 411 M'Cormick v. Sullivant, [CHANCERY. RES ADJUDICATA. Morris, (United States v.) [REMISSION OF FORFEITure. M'Dowell v. Peyton, [LOCAL LAW.] Mayer, (Darby v.) [LOCAL LAW.] Manro v. Almeida, [INSTANCE COURT. PRACTICE.] P. The Plattsburgh, [INSTANCE COURT. SLAVE TRADE ACTS.] 133 Peyton, (M-Dowell v.) [LOCAL LAW.] Southard, (Wayman v.) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. PRACTICE.] Sixty Pipes of Brandy, [INSTANCE COURT.j Steam Boat Thomas Jefferson, [CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. The Santa Maria, [PRIZE] T. Thomas v. Harvie's heirs, [CHANCERY.] Taylor, (Elmendorf v.) [CHANCERY. LIMITATION. LOCAL 152 The Thomas Jefferson, [CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. JURISDIC TION.] 428 U. United States Bank v. Halstead, [CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. 51 United States v. Morris, [REMISSION OF FORFEITURE. PLEAD- 246 . United States Bank v. Bank of Georgia, [PROMISSORY NOTE. 333 United States Bank v. January, [PRACTICE.] Note a, Wayman v. Southard, [CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. PRACTICE.] 1 204 Y. Young, (Corporation of Washington v.) [PRACTICE.] . . 406 MEMORANDUM. The case of Ogden v. Saunders, and the other causes involving the question of the validity of the State bankrupt or insolvent laws, argued at February term, 1824, by Mr. Clay, Mr. D. B. Ogden, and Mr. Haines, for the validity, and by Mr. Webster and Mr. Wheaton, against it, and continued for advisement to the present term, were again continued for advisement to the next term. REPORTS OF THE DECISIONS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. FEBRUARY TERM, 1825. [CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. PRACTICE.] WAYMAN and another v. SOUTHARD and another. Congress has, by the constitution, exclusive authority to regulate the proceedings in the Courts of the United States; and the States have no authority to control those proceedings, except so far as the State process acts are adopted by Congress, or by the Courts of the United States under the authority of Congress. The proceedings on executions, and other process, in the Courts of the United States, in suits at common law, are to be the same in each State, respectively, as were used in the Supreme Court of the State in September, 1789, subject to such alterations and additions as the said Courts of the United States may make, or as the Supreme Court of the United States shall prescribe by rule to the other Courts. A State law regulating executions, enacted subsequent to September, 1789, is not applicable to executions issuing on judgments rendered by the Courts of the United States, unless expressly adopted by the regulations and rules of those Courts. The 34th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, c. 20. which provides, "that the laws of the several States, except," &c. " shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law, in the Courts of the United States, in cases where they apply," does not apply to the process and practice of the Courts. It is a mere legislative recog VOL. X. 1 |