“After, the discharge of the two former rules, ante 317, Phillips entered a rule upon the plain tiff to show cause, why proceedings should not be staid on the bail bond, on payment of costs, and confession of judgment by the principal. He contended that, after assignment of the bail bond, the court will stay proceedings against the appearance bail on payment of costs, confessing judgment, and putting in and perfecting bail, as the court decided on one of the former rules.

“This was a bill for dower in two tracts of land, which had been sold and conveyed by the husband on the 28th of October 1776 to P. Marchinton, who conveyed the same to general Humpton, under whom the defendant claims, and for rents and profits since the institution of this suit. The answer admits the right of the plaintiff to dower in one of the tracts of land, but insists that considerable improvements have been placed upon the land by the defendant, and by general Humpton under whom he claims.

“Upon the trial of this cause, the defendant made the following objections to the execution of a commission issued to Hayti:—1. That it appeared; from the deposition taken under this commission, and from the certificate of the persons to whom it was directed, that the deposition of the witness was not committed to writing by him under the sanction of an oath, but was written and signed by him many days before the oath was administered. 2. That the general interrogatory is not answered at all, or even noticed. 3.

“Rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted. See this case ante 159. The grounds for the new trial were, 1. That the presiding judge, in delivering the charge to the jury, stated, that the land in question did not lie within the bounds of the purchase made from the Indians by the treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768, contrary to the real fact; and that, labouring under this mistake, he gave no opinion as to the construction of the act of 1786, which it is admitted applied to the land lying, within that purchase.

“This case comes before the court upon a motion to take the bill for confessed, the subpoena having been returned served upon Cadwallader Evans, one of the defendants, who has not appeared and filed his answer within three months after the day of appearance, and after the filing of the bill. It appears by an affidavit, that the other defendant resides out of this district, and has not been served with process.”

“Error to the Circuit Court of Pennsylvania. This is the same case which was formerly before this Court, and is reported ante, vol. 3 p. 454; and by a reference to that report, the form of the patent, the nature of the action, and the subsequent proceedings, will fully appear. The cause was now again brought before the Court upon a writ of error to the judgement of the Circuit Court, rendered upon the new trial, had in pursuance of the mandate of this Court. Upon the new trial, several exceptions were taken by the counsel for the plaintiff, Evans.

“Error to the Circuit Court of Pennsylvania. This was an action for the infringement of the same patent as in the preceding case of Evans v. Eaton, and was argued by the same counsel. The points involved will be found to be fully discussed in the argument of that case, to which the learned reader is referred. The following is the charge delivered to the jury in the Court below, which it is thought necessary here to insert . . . (1.) Such as respect the value of the plaintiff’s Hopperboy. (2.) The time of its discovery. (3.) The kind of machine used by the defendant.