“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.

“The libel filed in this case in the Court below, alleges a forfeiture of the merchandise therein set forth, by reason of a false entry of the goods at the custom-house. It is founded upon the 22d section of the act of the 20th April, 1818. Upon the trial a bill of exceptions was taken, and the case comes before this Court upon a writ of error.”

“This case has been certified into this Court, from the Northern District of this state, under the provisions of the judiciary act the judge of that Court having been the District Attorney by whom the suit was commenced. The question arises upon demurrer to the declaration.

“This is a motion, that the appearance of Fernando Arredondo, one of the defendants, be entered in this Court, for the purpose of removing the cause from the State Court, where it was commenced, pursuant to the act of Congress in such case made and provided . . .

“The application in this case is for a mandamus directed to the District Judge of the Northern District of this state, requiring him to vacate a rule which had been granted, allowing certain amendments of the record in this cause, and also to vacate and annul such amendments. If it was proper to enter into an examination of the regularity of such amendments, or the authority of the District Court, to allow them under the circumstances disclosed in the affidavits, the propriety of the amendments would at least be very questionable.”

“This is a motion to set aside the judgment entered in this cause during the present term, reversing the judgment of the District Court of the Northern District of this state. The motion is founded, on an allegation that the judgment was irregularly entered, being in violation of an order to stay the proceedings; and the motion is resisted on the ground, that the order was not duly served on the plaintiff’s attorney. The service was upon the law agent of the attorney in the Supreme Court of this state, and the first question is, whether this was a good service.”

“This case comes up on a writ of error to the District Court for the Northern District of this state. And the question presented for consideration arises out of a special verdict, upon which judgment has been given for the defendant. The result depends entirely upon the construction and location of the deed from Robert Morris to Andrew Craigie, of the 6th of April, 1797, under which the lessors of the plaintiff claims . . .

“On the 19th day of July, in the year 1813, Joseph Kauman, John I. Labouisse, and Nicholas M.