“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.”

“Assumpsit. This action was brought for the recovery of about $3000, together with the additional damages of two per cent, per month, authorized by the laws of Massachusetts, in cases where any bank shall refuse or neglect to pay its bank-bills in specie on demand. The facts were as follows.

“A bill in equity which was set down by consent for a hearing upon the bill and answer. It was argued by Hunter for the plaintiff, and by Randolph for the respondents, upon the point stated in the opinion of the court . . . The intestate, Lewis Rousmaniere, a merchant of Newport, being deeply and fraudulently insolvent, on the 4th of May, 1820, wrote a letter to the plaintiffs, who are merchants in Charleston, S.

“This was a bill in equity brought by the plaintiff Bean, against Simon Smith, Ziba Smith, Ahab Smith, Simon Smith, jr. Esther Stone, William Foster, and Elizabeth Foster, wherein he claimed to be paid, out of certain lands in the possession of the respondents, a debt due to him from Simon Smith, one of the said respondents.

“This is a bill in equity set down for a hearing upon demurrer.

“Appeal from the Circuit Court of North Carolina. This was the case of a ship and cargo, sailing under Spanish colours, and captured by the privateer Roger, Quarles, master, on an ostensible voyage from Havana to Hamburg, but really destined for London, or with an alternative destination, and orders to touch in England for information as to markets, and further instructions.

“Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New-York. This was a libel of information filed in the Court against certain goods imported from London on the ship Isabella, at the port of New-York, as forfeited under the 67th section of the collection act of the 2d of March, 1799, c.128.”

“In this case, P. T. Shelton & Co., consisting of P. T. Shelton, and Walter Shelton, being indebted to the United States for duties, made a voluntary assignment of all their effects for the payment of their debts. Walter Shelton, was in possession of some estate in his private character, which he afterwards conveyed for the payment of his private debts. The United States have filed their bill, claiming priority out of the social fund, and have also, in a supplemental bill, claimed priority out of the private fund. The controversy is, between the creditors under the first and last deed.