“The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court, upon the following case. On the 4th of December 181.1, Thomas Bedwell & Co. at Rio de Janeiro, drew a bill of exchange on William Nunn &. Co. of London, payable to the order of the defendant at three months sight, for £253. 6s. 6d. sterling, which he by the bill desired to be placed to the account of John Dayton, and in case of need, to apply to Messrs Coutts &, Co. This bill was indorsed to the plaintiff, a merchant at Calcutta.

“Rule obtained by defendant on the marshal to return the writ of habere facias possessionem. The court decided that the defendant could not call upon the marshal to return the writ, although the plaintiff might do so. Runn. 434, and the cases there cited.”

“Rule to show cause why the levy and sale of the land under a venditioni exponas should not be set aside. Suit was brought by Glassell against James Wilson in 1797, and judgment was entered in 1798; soon after which, Wilson died, and administration on his estate was granted to Bird Wilson. In 1819 Glassell died, and a scire facias, to revive the judgment, was sued out in the name of Mr Swan, a citizen of Maryland, his administrator.

“Rule upon the plaintiff to show cause why he should not produce certain books, papers, and accounts at the trial of this cause . . . It was stated in the case of Bas vs. Steele, 3 Wash. C. C. Rep. 381, decided in this court, that to entitle the defendant to nonsuit the plaintiff at the trial, upon the ground of a non-production of papers, he must first obtain an order of the court, under a regular notice, that the papers should be produced. But the court did not decide whether such order must be absolute in the first instance.”

“Bill to enjoin the defendant from printing, engraving, etching, copying, publishing or selling a. certain historical print of the declaration of independence, which the plaintiff claims to have invented and designed at April term 1819. This case was before the court at April term 1819, and was then dismissed; it having been decided, that, although in patent causes the courts of the United States have jurisdiction when both parties reside in the same state, the same did not exist in cases of copy-right.

“This was an action of indebitatus assumpsit, to recover back $10,000 paid by the plaintiffs’ agents to the defendants, as freight, upon certain goods brought in the ship America, from Calcutta to Philadelphia, which the plaintiffs insist were not liable to pay freight . . . Upon the cases cited by the plaintiffs’ counsel, it was remarked, that none of them, except Hutton vs. Bragg, 2 Mass. 339. touch the question of liens, but merely the responsibility of the owners, for an alleged misconduct in the captain.”