CASES COMMENTED ON. 1. Penalty on liquidated damages. Fletcher v. Dycke, 2 T. R. 32. distinguished from Tayloe v. Sandiford, 18 2. Commitment for contempt. Cros- by, Lord Mayor of London, 3 Wils. 188. confirmed in Ex parte Kearney, 3. Lien of vendor for u paid pur- chase money, various cases on the subject of, commented on, distinguished, confirmed, or overruled, in Bailey v. Green- leaf, 51. 57 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. Gilman ante, vol. IV. p. 255. reconciled with Brown v. Jack-
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 his 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 v. 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.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
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, 2. But this Court has no 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. 41 5. The case of Crosby, Lord Mayor of London, 3 Wils. 188. com- mented on, and its authority confirmed. Id. 6. 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. 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 25th 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.
the construction of the act of Congress. Matthews v. Lane, 164. 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. 206
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. 17 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 for 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. And it must also appear that the party found in possession enter- ed without right; for if his entry were congeable, or his posses- sion lawful, his entry and pos- session will be considered as limited by his right.
The doctrine of estoppel, or the principle of legal policy, which forbids a party from denying the title under which he has re- ceived a conveyance, does not apply as between vendor and vendee, especially where the See DEED. latter has not received posses- sion from the former. Blight's lessee v. Rochester, 535. 547 See EJECTMENT, EVIDENCE, FRaud.
1. Possession of land by a party, claiming it as his own in fee, is prima facie evidence of his ownership and seisin of the inheritance. Ricard v. Wil- liams, 59. 105 2. But possession alone, unexplain- ed by collateral circumstances, which show the quality and ex- tent of the interest claimed, evi- dences no more than the mere fact of present occupation by right. Id.
105 3. But if the party be in under ti- tle, and by mistake of law sup- poses 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 dis- seisor cannot qualify his own wrong, but must be considered as a disseisor in fee. Id. 5. But this rule is introduced only for the benefit of the disseisee, for the sake of electing his re- medy.
1. Presumptions of a grant, ari- sing from the lapse of time, are applied to corporeal, as well as incorporeal hereditaments. Ri- card v. Williams, 59. 109 2. They may be encountered and rebutted by contrary presump- tions, and can never arise where all the circumstances are per- fectly consistent with the non- existence of a grant. Id. 109 3. A fortiori, they cannot arise where the claim is of such a na- ture as is at variance with the supposition of a grant. Id. 110 4. In general, the presumption of a grant is limited to periods ana- logous 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 re- sorted to: but if the circum- stances of the case are very co- gent, 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 rea- sonable time after the death of the intestate. Id. 115
7. The case of such a power to sell is not within the purview of the statute of limitations of Connec- ticut, which limits all rights of entry and action to fifteen years after the title accrues; but the reasonable time, within which the power must be exercised, is to be fixed by analogy to that statute. Id. 8. One heir, notwithstanding his entry as heir, may afterwards, by disseisin of his co-heirs, ac- quire an exclusive possession, upon which the statute will run both against his co-heirs and against creditors. Id. 120 9. An heir may claim an estate by
title distinct or paramount to that of his ancestor; and if his pos- session is exclusive under such claim, against all other persons, until the statute period has run, he is entitled to the protection of the bar. Id.
10. A person having an interest only in the question, and not in the event of the suit, is a competent witness. Evans v. Eaton, 356. 421
11. In general, the liability of a wit-
ness to a like action, or his standing in the same predica- ment with the party sued, if the verdict cannot be given in evi- dence for or against him, is an interest in the question, and does not exclude him. Id. 424 12. Where a deposition has once been read in evidence without opposition, it cannot be after- wards objected to as being ir- regularly taken. Evans v. Het- tich, 13. It is no objection to the compe- tency or credibility of a witness, that he is subject to fits of de- rangement, if he is sane at the time of giving his testimony.
14. The doctrine that if witnesses concur in proof of a material fact, they ought to be believed in respect to that fact, whatever may be the other contradictions in their testimony, ought to be received under many qualifica- tions and with great caution. The Santissima Trinidad, 338 15. Application of the maxim, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. Id.
339 16. The decisions of the board of Commissioners under the acts of Congress providing for the in- demnification of claimants to public lands in the Mississippi Territory, (commonly called the Yazoo lands,) are conclu- sive between the parties in all cases within the jurisdiction of the Commissioners. Brown v. Jackson, 218. 237 17. This determination reconciled with that of the Court in Brown v. Gilman, ante, vol. IV. p. 255. .p.. Id. 240 18. The practice of the State Courts
cannot sanction the admission of depositions in the Courts of the United States, which are not taken according to the laws of the United States, and the rules of their Courts. Evans v. Ea- ton, 426
1. A debtor has a right to prefer one creditor to another in pay- ment, and his private motives for giving the preference can- not affect the exercise of the right, if the preferred creditor has done nothing improper to procure it. Marbury v. Brooks, 565
2. But any unlawful consideration, moving from the preferred
2. But p' it be invalidated by the ed F the trustee, to whom 'wh conveyance is made, being father in-law of the debtor, received the conveyance with a view of concealing the felony, and preventing a prosecution of his son-in-law, provided it was not executed wth the concur- rence of the cestui que trusts, and a knowledge on their part of the motives which influenced the trustee, or was not after- wards assented to by them un- der some engagement to sup- press the prosecution. Id. 579
1. Under a policy containing the following clause: "And lastly,
en insu- by a regu- unsoundness at
ent period of the scharged the under- Dorr v. The Pacific 581
An exemplification of a condem- nation of the vessel in a foreign Court of Vice Admiralty, reci- ting the certificate of surveyors, that the vessel was unworthy of being repaired, and unsafe and unfit ever to go to sea again, and produced in evidence by the in- sured to prove the loss, is "a regular survey," in the lan- guage of the above clause. Id. 581
3. But the survey must correspond with the contract, and if the vessel be declared unseaworthy for any additional cause, besides being "unsound or rotten," it is not conclusive evidence of un- seaworthiness Id. 581
JUDGMENT.
See EVIDENCE, 16. 17. PRIZE, 11, 12. 17.
JURISDICTION. ·
A writ of errror lies from this Court, upon a judgment of the Circuit Courts awarding a pe- remptory mandamus. The Co
« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó » |