11. A grant made by the French authorities in Louisiana in 1722, unaided by a sur-
vey, and the calls in which were too vague and indeterminate to separate any par-
ticular tract of land from the public domain, will not support an action of ejectment.
Denise v. Ruggles, 16 H. 242....109.
12. The title of Dubuque, under an alleged grant from the Fox Indians, confirmed by
the Spanish governor of Louisiana, held to be merely a permit to work mines, and
occupy for that purpose the needful land. Chouteau v. Molony, 16 H. 203....87.
13. Under the fifth section of the act of March 3, 1811, (2 Stats. at Large, 663,) pre-
scribing the terms on which proprietors of contiguous lands, on a stream, in Loui-
siana, could obtain titles to adjacent back lands belonging to the United States, where
each of two proprietors could not obtain his full quantity by reason of the directions
of their side lines, a division between them of such back land, made, in good faith,
by the principal deputy surveyor of the proper district, under the superintendence
of the surveyor of public lands south of the State of Tennessee, was final and con-
clusive upon their respective rights, and cannot be disturbed by any court of justice.
Haydel v. Dufresne, 17 H. 23....347.
14. The principles of the decisions of this court concerning titles in Louisiana and
Florida, examined, and distinctions between those titles and titles in California,
stated. Fremont v. United States, 17 H. 542....667.
15. A grant by the Mexican governor of California, of ten square leagues of land
within a certain district of country, in consideration of meritorious services of the
grantee, conferred an equitable right to that quantity of land within that district,
valid as against the Mexican government, and consequently as against the United
States, though the particular tract had not been designated by a survey, at the time
of the cession to the United States; and the particular land to which this title is to
attach, must be ascertained by a survey made under the authority and in the mode
provided by the laws of the United States. Ib.
16. The force and effect of the conditions subsequent, annexed to this grant, consid-
ered. Ib.
17. By the laws of Mexico, an Indian was capable of receiving a grant of land, and
holding it, with the same rights as a white person. United States v. Ritchie, 17 H.
18. Under the laws of Mexico, the public authorities of California had power to make
grants of mission lands. Ib.
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, 16–18.
QUIETING TITLE.
EQUITY, 2. 3.
1. The appointment of a receiver, under a creditor's bill, filed in a court of chancery
of the State of New York, against one who was a resident of that State, did not
vest in the receiver the debtor's claim against a foreign government. Booth v. Clark,
17 H. 322....524.
2. The nature and extent of the title of a receiver, and the operation of foreign bank-
rupt and insolvent laws examined. Ib.
RECEIVERS OF PUBLIC MONEYS.
BOND; EVIDENCE, 3.
RECORD.
WRIT OF ERROR, 3.
REGISTRATION.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 4.
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, 9. 10.
1. Under the tariff act of 1846, (9 Stats. at Large, 42,) shawls of worsted, worsted
and cotton, silk and worsted, silk, barege, merino, mousseline de laine, and worsted
and silk scarfs, are wearing apparel, and subject to a duty of thirty per centum
ad valorem under schedule C. Maillard v. Lawrence, 16 H. 251....115.
2. The sixty-sixth section of the collection act of 1799, (1 Stats. at Large, 677,) is not
repealed by the nineteenth section of the tariff act of 1842, (5 Stats. at Large, 565,)
nor by the eighth section of the tariff act of 1846, (9 Stats. at Large, 43.)
States v. Sixty-seven Packages of Dry Goods, 17 H. 85....383.
3. Repeals, by implication, of revenue and collection laws, not favored. Ib.
4. The decision in the next preceding case, again affirmed.
Cases of Silk Hats, 17 H. 97....390.
5. The decision in the two preceding cases, affirmed.
of Merchandise, 17 H. 98....390.
6. The decision in the three preceding cases affirmed.
Clocks, 17 H. 99....391.
United States v. One Package
United States v. One Case of
7. Additional duties, by way of penalty, levied pursuant to the eighth section of the
tariff act of 1846, (9 Stats. at Large, 43,) are not distributable to any officers of the
customs. Ring v. Maxwell, 17 H. 147....418.
8. Though the act of February 11, 1846, § 3, (9 Stats. at Large, 3,) applies, in terms,
only to the additional duties levied under the seventeenth section of the tariff act of
1842, yet those levied under the eighth section of the tariff act of 1846, are only
substitutes therefor in certain cases, and to be governed by the same rule as to dis-
tribution. Ib.
9. Under the sixteenth and seventeenth sections of the tariff act of 1842, (5 Stats. at
Large, 563-4,) the power of the government appraisers was not terminated by re-
turning an appraisement to the collector; when they found it was questioned, they
had a right to reconsider it, and for this purpose to call on the importer to produce
his correspondence, and he could not, by taking an appeal, exempt himself from the
duty of producing it. Bartlett v. Kane, 16 H. 263....122.
10. The decision of the government appraisers is final, if not appealed from; or if an
appeal, having been taken, is waived. 1b.
11. Additional duties, by way of penalty, levied under the eighth section of the tariff
act of 1846, (9 Stats. at Large, 43,) do not make a part of the drawback, to be re-
turned on exportation. 1b.
12. The twentieth section of the tariff act of 1842, (5 Stats. at Large, 565,) was not
designed to levy duties, but to check fraudulent evasions, or prevent doubts in the
execution of the revenue laws; and it is not repealed by the tariff act of 1846, (9
Stats. at Large, 42.) Stuart v. Maxwell, 16 H. 150....61.
13. There is no act of congress which enables a collector of customs to act as an in-
spector, and claim compensation therefor. Stewart v. United States, 17 H. 116.
403.
14. Duties collected in California between February 3, 1848, (the date of the treaty
of peace,) and November 13, 1849, (when the collector entered on the duties of his
office,) were not illegally exacted, and cannot be recovered back by the importer
Cross v. Harrison, 16 H. 164....66.
BANKRUPT, 1; EQUITY, 8. 9; TAXES, 2.
1. The title of the city of Boston to a part of the shore of the sea, within its limits,
examined. City of Boston v. Lecraw, 17 H. 426....590.
2. Though the proprietor of the shore, in Massachusetts, may build thereon, and thus
exclude the public from its use for navigation when covered by the tide, until he
does so the public may lawfully so use it, such use is not adverse, and lays no foun-
dation for a presumption of a dedication of the land to that use. Ib.
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
In a proceeding against a sheriff for not making the money out of goods returned as
seized, he may show, in defence, that the goods did not belong to the debtor, but to
a third person. Chapman v. Smith, 16 H. 114....48.
1. Prima facie the consignee of goods under a bill of lading, has the legal title and a
beneficial interest in the goods, and may sue the carrier for the non-delivery there-
of. Lawrence v. Minturn, 17 H. 100....392.
2. Powers of the master, respecting jettisons, stated. Ib.
3. There is no implied warranty by the owners, that the vessel shall prove sufficiently
buoyant to carry cargo placed on deck under a contract with the shipper. He takes
the risk of perils, arising solely from that place of stowage in which he agreed his
property should be carried. Ib.
4. Under a charter-party for a voyage from London direct, or thence to Cardiff in
Wales, to load for port or ports on the Pacific, where the vessel was to be employed
between such ports as the charterers might elect, for the full term of fifteen months,
with a privilege to the charterers to extend the time to twenty-four months, the hire
being at the rate of $2,000 a month, payable in New York, semiannually; held, the
owners had not a lien on the outward cargo from Cardiff to the Pacific, for the first
six months' hire of the vessel, which became due at New York before the arrival of
the vessel at the port of delivery in the Pacific. Raymond v. Tyson, 17 H. 53....
362.
COLLISION; Master and SerVANT; TAXES, 1.
A question of fact respecting the ownership of slaves. Amis v.
PUBLIC LANDS, 2. 5. ì. 9. 10. 12.
Specific performance refused, on the ground of laches, and non-performance by the
complainants, and loss of title. Boone v. Missouri Iron Company, 17 H. 340....
1. A judgment having been recovered in the highest court of a State by the treasurer
of the State, suing ex officio, the citation to appear to a writ of error, under the 25th
section of the judiciary act of 1789, (1 Stats. at Large, 85,) should be served on
the treasurer, and not on the governor and attorney-general. Poydras de la Lande's
Heirs v. Treasurer of the State of Louisiana, 17 H. 1....333.
2. The tenth rule of this court applies only to cases in which a State is a party on the
record. Ib.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1-3; COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1. 3. 5.
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1-5; JUDGMENT, &c. 6; LIEN; PUBLIC
Rules of construction of public grants, especially those made to corporations, in dero-
gation of common right. Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company v. Debolt, 16 H.
416....230.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, 4; FERRY; PERJURY;
REVENUE LAWS, 2-6.
STATUTES OF THE U. S. REFERRED TO IN THIS VOLUME.
1789, August 7, Northwest Territory. 1 Stats. at Large, 50.
United States v. Guthrie, 17 H. 284...
1789, September 2, Treasury Department. 1 Stats. at Large, 65.
United States v. Guthrie, 17 H. 284..
1789, September 24, Judiciary. 1 Stats. at Large, 73.
Sizer v. Many, 16 H. 98.
Piquignot v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co. 16 H. 104. . . . 44
Homer v. Brown, 16 H. 354..
1790, February 8, Revenue Laws, (North Carolina.) 1 Stats. at Large, 99.
1790, May 26, Authentication of Records. 1 Stats. at Large, 122.
Booth v. Clark, 17 H. 322.
1790, June 14, Revenue Laws, (Rhode Island.) 1 Stats. at Large, 126.
Cross v. Harrison, 16 H. 164.
1790, July 20, Tonnage Duties. 1 Stats. at Large, 135.
Cross v. Harrison, 16 H. 164...
1792, May 8, Process in Courts of the United States. 1 Stats. at Large, 275.
Homer v. Brown, 16 H. 354...
Hays v. Pacific Mail Steamship Co. 17 H. 596....... 718
1793, February 21, Useful Arts. 1 Stats. at Large, 318.
Seymour v. McCormick, 16 H. 480...
1793, February 28, Invalid Pensions. 1 Stats. at Large, 324.
Florida v. Georgia, 17 H. 478.
1794, June 5, Crimes against United States. 1 Stats. at Large, 381.
Williams v. Gibbes, 17 H. 239.
1794, December 12, Judiciary. 1 Stats. at Large, 404.
Stafford v. Union Bank of Louisiana, 16 H. 135......58
|