“This is an appeal from a decree of the district court.
“These causes came before the court upon rules to show cause why the proceedings in both should not be stayed, and the causes dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and why the writ of inquiry, and all proceedings under it, in the first case, should not be quashed.
“This cause came on to be re-tried, under the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States, to award a ven. fac.. de novo. See 3 Wheaton. When the cause was called for trial, the defendant objected, that the judgment of this Court upon a former trial, was still in force, and unreversed; as no writ of error had been sued out, to remove the record of that judgment into the Supreme Court; without which, that Court would not take jurisdiction of the cause.”
“This was an ejectment to recover two hundred and forty acres of land called the Windmill Tract.
“This was an action of assumpsit. The principal item in the bill of particulars delivered to the defendant, was one for about $1700 principal, interest and costs, paid by the plaintiff under an execution upon a judgment rendered on a custom house bond to the United States, executed by the defendant as principal, and the plaintiff as his surety. To prove this item, the plaintiff offered in evidence a paper under the seal of the district court of Pennsylvania, certified by the clerk of that court to be a true copy of the docket entries in a suit of the United States vs.
“The defendant was indicted for manslaughter committed by him, being one of the ship’s company of the Arabella belonging to citizens of the United States, on another of the ship’s company of said vessel, in the river Elba. After the evidence was concluded, it was objected by the defendant’s counsel that no evidence having been given to prove that the vessel on board of which the offence is alleged to have been committed, belonged to a citizen of the United States, a verdict could not be found against the defendant.
“A rule was granted upon the mayor of the city of Philadelphia, on the motion of the prisoner, to show cause why he should not deliver to the prisoner certain bank notes of the bank of the United States, alleged to be genuine, to the value and amount of $1550, which the mayor had taken from the person of the prisoner upon his examination upon a charge of forgery. The mayor appeared by counsel to show cause, and admitted the notes to be genuine; but denied the right of the court to interfere in a summary way in a matter of this kind.”
“This case resembles that of M’Culloch vs. Girard, which was tried at the October sessions of this court in 1822, (see ante 289,) the present plaintiff having been one of the persons on whose account Mr Jones made, the contract with the defendant. The few points of difference between the two cases are totally immaterial to the point decided in this cause, and therefore are not stated.
“This was an action of covenant for nonpayment of a certain sum of money, the consideration for a tract of land lying in the state of New York.
“This was an ejectment to recover two hundred and fifty acres of land in Union county. The lessors of the plaintiff claim as the representatives of John Snyder. The title of the plaintiffs was as follows: a warrant dated the 17th of March 1762, which, after reciting a prior order of the proprietor to the surveyor general, dated ------ 1754, to survey two thousand acres for Conrad Wiser, which had not been complied with; directs the said quantity of land to be surveyed for the heirs and representatives of the said Conrad Wiser, then deceased.”