Lessee of Lanning vs. London, April Term, 1825
“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.”
“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.
“The first count in the indictment was for confining the captain, and the second for an assault on board of a vessel belonging to citizens of the United States, with a dangerous weapon. Both offences are charged to have been committed on the high seas, in the outer road off the port of St Domingo. The master gave in evidence that, whilst the vessel was lying in the port of St Domingo, and in the inner road, he was hastily passing the mate at night, and might unintentionally have touched him with his arm.
“In October 1812, the defendant, a merchant of Philadelphia, consigned to the plaintiff, a merchant of Bourdeaux, forty bags of coffee, weighing between five and six thousand pounds, which were accompanied by a letter of advice, apprizing him of the consignment, and containing the following order, viz.
“The bill states, that before the intermarriage of the plaintiffs, an indenture tripartite was made between Samuel E. Howell and R. R. Smith, executors of Samuel Howell, of the first part, Hannah Howell, the female plaintiff, of the second part, and the defendant’s intestate, William E. Howell, of the third part, which, after reciting a bequest of £3000 by Samuel Howell to his granddaughter Hannah L.
“The defendant was indicted for an assault upon the person of Mr Salmon, the Spanish charge d’affaires, and for infracting the law of nations by committing violence, upon his person. These charges were contained in two separate indictments, both of which were tried at the same time.”
“In taxing the bill of costs in this case, the clerk refused to allow to the successful party, any compensation for his own attendance, and for his travelling expenses, because no such allowance was, or is allowed by the laws of the state. He also refused to allow to the party’s witnesses more than fifty cents for every twenty miles travelling, and the same for each day’s attendance; his opinion being, that the act of the 28th of February 1799, is confined to witnesses in criminal cases, who are to be paid by the United States.