페이지 이미지
[ocr errors][ocr errors]






1. An offence against a temporary
statute cannot be punished after
the expiration of the act, unless
a particular provision be made
by law for that purpose. The
Irresistible, 651

2. The proviso- in the repealing
clause of the Neutrality Act of
the 20th of April. 1818, did not
authorize a forfeiture under the
act of the 3d of March, 1817,
(which was included in the re-
peal,) after the time when that
act would have expired by its
own limitation. Id. 552


1. British subjects, born before the
revolution, are equally incapa-
ble with those born after, of in-
heriting, or transmitting the in-
heritance of lands in this coun-
try. Blight's lessee v. Rochester,

635. 544.

2. The treaties of 1783, and 1794,
only provide for titles existing
at the time those treaties were
made, and not to titles subse-
quently acquired. Id. 544

Vol.. VII.

3. Actual possession is not neces-
sary to give the party the benefit
of the treaty ; but the existence
of title at the time is Decessary.

Id. 545

4. Where J. D., an alien and Bri-
tish subject, came into the Uni-
ted States subsequent to the
treaty of 1783, ana, before the
signature of the treaty of 1794,
died, seised of the lands in ques-
tion '. Held, that the title of his
heirs was not protected by the
treaties. Id. 544

5. In what cases citizenship may
be presumed so as to confirm a
title to lands. Id. 545



See Fracd.


1. A bill, or note, is prima facie
evidence, under a count for
money had and received, against
the drawer or endorser. Page's
Administrator v. The Bank of Al-
exandria, 35

2. But the presumption, that the
contents of the bill or note have
been received by the party su-
ed, and for the use of the plain-
tiff, may be rebutted by circum-
stances; and a recovery cannot
be had, in such a case, where
it is proved that the money was
actually received by another
party. Id. 35


1. Penalty on liquidated damages.
Fletcher v. Dycke, 2 T. R. J2.
distinguished from Tayloe v.
Sandiford, 18

2. Commitment for contempt. Croj-
by, Lord Mayor of London, 3
Wils. 188. confirmed in Ex parte
Kearney, "13

3 Lien of vendor for u p iid pur-
chase money, various cases on
the subject of, commented on,
distinguished, confirmed, or
overruled, in Bailey v. Green-
leaf, 51. 67

4. Local Law Decision of this
Court in Matthews v. Zane, 5
Cranch, 92. revised and con-
firmed in S. C. 208

5. Conclusiveness of decree. Brown
v. Gil Hum ante,vol. IV. p. 255.
reconciled with Brown v. Jack-
son, 240

6. Exemption of public ships from
foreign jurisdiction. 7Vie Cas-
sivs, 3 Dall. 121. The Invinci-
ble, ante, vol. I. p. 238. and
The Exchange, 7 Crunch, 116.
commented on in The Santitsiina
Trinidad, 350

7. Patent. Evans v. Eaton, ante,
vol. III. p. 454. explained and
confirmed in S. C. and Evans v.
Hettich, 427. 481. 468

8. Practice in Real Actions. Green
V, Watkins, ante, vol VI. 2bU

• commented on and confirmed in
JWacker's heirs v. Thomas, 631


1. The vendor of real property,
who has not taken a separate
security for the purchase mo-
ney, has alien for it, on the land,
as against the vendee and bis
heirs. Bailey v. Greenleaf,

46, 50

2. This lien is defeated by an
alienation to a bonafide purcha-
ser without notice. Id. 50

3. Nor can it be asserted against
creditors holding under a bona.

fide conveyance from the ven-
dee. Id. 50

4. Quare, Whether the lien can
be asserted against the assignees
of a bankrupt, or other credi-
tors coming in under the pur-
chaser by act of law? Id. 50

5. The dictum of Sugden, in hi*
Law of Vendors, 364. examined,
and questioned. Id. 50

6. It is a rule, both of law and
equity, that a party must re-
cover on the strength of his own
title, and not on the weakness of
his adversary's. Watts r. Lind-
sey's heirs, 158. 161

7. The decree must conform to the
allegations in the pleadings as
well as the proofs in the cause.
Crocket v. Lee, 522. 525

See Local Law, 3. 28, 29, 30.
Practice, 1.


1. This Court has authority to issue
a habeas corpus, where a person
is imprisoned under the warrant
or order of any other Court of
the United States. Ex parte
Kearney, 38. 41

2. But this Court has Do appellate
jurisdiction in criminal cases,
confided to it by the laws of the
United States, and cannot revise
the judgments of the Circuit
Courts, by writ of error, in any
case where a party has been
convicted of a public offence.
Id. 41

3. Hence the Court will not grant
a habeas corpus, where a party
has been committed for a con-
tempt adjudged by a Court of
competent jurisdiction. Id. 41

4. In such a case, this Court will
not inquire into the sufficiency
of the cause of commitment. Id.


the construct'on of the act of
Congress. Matthews v. Lane,
1C4. 206
8. Note on the extent of the appel-
late jurisdiction of this Court in
cases arising in the State Courts
under the constitution, treaties,
and laws of the Union. Note a.


Sec Jurisdiction.


1. In general, a sum of money in
gross, to be paid for the non-
performance of an agreement,
is considered as a penalty, and
not as liquidated damages. Tay-
loe v. Sandiford, 13 17

2. A fortiori, when it is expressly
reserved as a penalty. Id. 1?

3. Thus, where in a building con-
tract, the following covenant was
contained: " The' said houses
to be completely finished on or
before the 24th of December
next, under a penalty of 1000
dollars, in case of failure;" it
was held, that this was not in-
tended as liquidated damages tor
the breach of that single cove-
nant only, but applied to all the
covenants made by the same
party in that agreement; that it
was in the nature of a penalty,
and could not be set off in an ac-
tion brought by the party to re-
cover the price of the work. Id,


6. The case of Crosby, Lord Mayor
of London, 3 Wils. 188. com-
mented on, and its authority
confirmed. Id. 41

G. A commitment for a contempt
by a Court of competent juris-
diction, in the exercise of its ju-
risdiction, is conclusive, and can-
not be inquired into in any other
tribunal. Id. 41.

7. Where a party claiming title to
lands under an act of Congress,
brought a bill for a conveyance,
and stated several equitable cir-
cumstances in aid of his title,
and the State Court where the
suit was brought having dis-
missed the bill, and the cause
being brought to this Court by
appeal, under the 2oth sec. of
the judiciary act of 1789, c. 20.,
upon the ground of an alleged
misconstruction of the act of
Congress under which the title
Was claimed, by the State Court:
Held, that this Court could not
take into consideration any dis-
tinct equity arising out of the
contracts or transactions of the
parties, and creating a new and
independent title, but was con-
fined to an examination of the
plaintiff's title as depending upon

4. An agreement to perform cer-
tain work within a limited time,
under a rertain penalty, is not
to be construed as liquidating
the damages which the patty is
to pay for the breach of his co-
venant. Id. 17

5. The case of Fletcher v Dycke,
2 Term Rep. 32. coiiimetitei) on,
and distinguished from the pre-
sent. Id. 17


The doctrine of estoppel, or the principle of legal policy, which forbids a party from denying the title under which he has received a conveyance, does not apply as between vendor and vendee, especially where the latter has not received possession from the former. Blight's lessee v. Rochester, 535. 647

See Ejectment, Evidence, Fraud.


1. Possession of land by a parly, claiming it as his own in fee, is prima facie evidence of his ownership and seisin of the inheritance. Ricard v. Williams, 69. 105

2. But possession alone, unexplained by collateral circumstances, which show the quality and extent of the interest claimed, evidences no more than the mere fact of present occupation by right. Id. 105

3. But if the party be in under title, and by mistake of law supposes himself possessed of a less estate than really belongs to him, the law will remit him to his full right and title. Id. 106

4. It is a general rule that a disseisor cannot qualify his own wrong, but roust be considered as a disseisor ip fee. Id. 107

5. But this rule is introduced only for tiie benefit of the disseisee, for the sake of electing his remedy, lb.

[blocks in formation]

1. Presumptions of a grant, arising from the lapse of time, are applied to corporeal, as well as incorporeal hereditaments. Ricard v. Williams, 69. 109

2. They may be encountered and rebutted by contrary presumptions, and can never arise where all the circumstances are perfectly consistent with the nonexistence of a grant. Id. 109

3. A fortiori, they cannot arise where the claim is of such a nature as is at variance with the supposition of a grant. Id. 110

4. In general, the presumption of a grant is limited to periods analogous to those of the statute of limitations, in cases where the statute does not apply. Id. 110

5. Where the statute applies, the presumption is not generally resorted to: but if the circumstances of the case are very cogent, and require it, a grant may be presumed within a period short of the statute. Id. 110

6. Under the laws of Massachusetts and Connecticut, the power of an administrator to sell the real estate of bis intestate, under an order of the Court of Probates, must be exercised within a reasonable time after the death of the intestate. Id. 116

« 이전계속 »