“It was decided in this case, that to entitle the plaintiff to give in evidence a sheriff’s deed, it was necessary to produce the record of the judgment under which the sale of the land was made.”

“The bill states that John A. Holt, by his last will, devised all his real estate to his wife during her life, and after her decease, that the profits of the same should be enjoyed by his daughter, Catherine Sheneck, during her life; and after her death the said real estate to be sold by his executors, and the money thence arising to be equally divided amongst the grandchildren of the testator then living, share and share alike, except his grandson, Michael Cooper, who was to have two shares.

“The plaintiff excepted to the answer, so far as it denied that the defendant had any knowledge of the facts alleged in the bill to which the answer applied, without adding that he had no information or belief of the facts. The court decided the exception to be well taken, and ordered the defendant to put in a better answer.”

“Upon a motion for an injunction to restrain the defendant from making and vending the plaintiff’s improvement for which he had obtained a patent, the court required the plaintiff to subjoin to his bill a special affidavit of the truth of the allegations of the same; and that he is, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the true and original inventor and discoverer of the improvement for which he had obtained his patent; and that the same had not, to his knowledge or belief been in use, or been described in any public work, anterior to his said invention and discovery.

“The bill states that the plaintiff and defendant entered into a written agreement for a purchase, by the former, from the latter, of a certain tract of land, for which he was to receive a good title, and was to pay a certain sum by instalments. That the plaintiff was put into possession, but the defendant having refused to convey the land according to his contract, and having brought an ejectment against the plaintiff to recover the land, which was removed from the state court to this, he prays for a specific performance, and for an injunction.

“Action to recover the balance of an account of sales rendered by the defendant to plaintiff. The case was, the plaintiff, a merchant of New York, entered into a contract with defendant, then residing in Philadelphia, in the year 1818, to furnish him with a large assortment of jewellery, which he was to take from place to place in the United States to sell for the plaintiff, upon a commission of five per cent, on the invoice prices, and one half of what he might sell them for beyond those prices, the same to be in lieu of expenses and all other charges.

“Comfort Sands, a bankrupt, and one of the defendants in this cause, has interposed a plea in abatement to the jurisdiction of this Court, alleging, that all the matters and causes of complaint in the plaintiff's bill of complaint contained, belong exclusively to the Judge of the District Court of the Southern District of the state of New-York.”

“Error to the District Court of the Southern District of New-York. The plaintiffs brought an action of debt in the Court below againt the defendant as Sheriff of the city and county of New- York, for the escape of one Joseph Wilson, a prisoner committed to his custody on a capias ad satisfaciendum, at the suit of the plaintiffs. At the trial it appeared that the plaintiffs on the 4th of May, 1819, issued a ca.

“Error to the District Court for the Southern District of New-York. The plaintiffs declared in the Court below, upon a bond executed by the defendants to the plaintiffs, on the 22d day of August, 1816, in the penal sum of 5,000 dollars, with the following condition. ‘The condition of this obligation is such, that whereas the above bounden Lieut. James W. Lent, junr., has been appointed a Battalion Quarter-Master in the corps of artillery, and has accepted said appointment. Now if the said Lieut. James W.

“This was an action of assumpsit against the defendant, who was Collector of the District of New-York, to recover a portion of a forfeiture which the plaintiff claimed under the collection law, as informer . . . It appeared on the trial, that the brig Rambler from St. Bartholomew’s, was on the 7th day of March, 1812, boarded, and a man put on board of her at Sandy Hook by the revenue cutter Active, under orders from the Collector to send vessels from St. Bartholomew’s bound for Amboy to New-York.