“This case comes before the court upon a motion for an injunction. The plaintiff, by his bill, claims to be the proprietor of ‘an improvement on the horizontal circular plane or wheel, invented by him, for the purpose of gaining power by, applying animal weight to the propelling of boats on water, or to machinery on land;’ which, the bill charges, was secured to him by a patent dated the 17th of November 1819, and that the specification was filed in the patent office on the 13th of April 1818.

“This was an action to recover the freight due for the carriage of a parcel of hides, from Maldonado to Philadelphia, shipped at that port, and deliverable as per bills of lading to A. Curcier of Philadelphia, or to his assigns, he or they paying freight. The declaration contains two sets of counts. One upon a special promise made by the defendant to Mr Von Lengerke, the agent of the plaintiffs, in the following terms: ‘as soon as you shall have adjusted the freight with A. Curcier, I will pay you, if he does not.’ 2.

“Case agreed. On the 11th of December 1820, the plaintiff owned and possessed sundry promissory notes called bank notes, drawn and signed in due form by and on behalf of the defendants, whereby they promised to pay to different persons, or bearer, on demand, the several sums mentioned in the said notes, which were of the description following : one note, letter A, No. 583, for $100, payable to Benjamin Morgan or bearer; fifteen notes for $20 each, payable in like manner, and of the following letters and numbers, viz. H, 1492, G, 1489, &c.

“Libel on information of seizure for a violation of the Coasting Act of 1793, ch. 8, and the Revenue Act of 1799, ch. 128. At the trial at October Term, 1821, the acts of illicit trade being proved to be in Passamaquoddy Bay, the principal question was, whether they were done within the territorial limits of the United States, or within the British waters.

“This was a writ of error from the judgment of the District Court. The original action was assumpsit for money bad and received, brought by the United States against the defendant in error, as administrator of the estate of Col. John L. Tuttle, deceased. The defendant pleaded, 1. The general statute of limitations of Massachusetts, (substantially like the statute of 21 Jac. ch. 16, § 3,) to personal actions; 2. the statute of Massachusetts, limiting suits against executors and administrators to four years after the acceptance of the trust; 3.

“The bill-states the plaintiffs to have been, since the 10th of April 1821, owners of a grist mill, situated on a branch of the Speedwell river, in Morris county, New Jersey, which, with the pond, the waters flowing into it, and all other appurtenances, they purchased on that day, at a sale thereof made by the administrator of Ural Tuttle, under an order of the orphan’s court, and received a regular conveyance therefor.

“This ejectment was to recover four hundred and thirty acres of land in Luzerne county, surveyed in the name of David Brown. It is one of the sixteen surveys mentioned in the case of Lanning vs. London, &.c. ante, 159; and the same, or nearly the same evidence was given in both cases . . . Upon the trial of this case, the plaintiff' offered in evidence the sheriff’s deed of the 6th of May 1802, for one third of Eddy’s interest in the land conveyed by Thomas to Eddy and Hollenback, to Samuel W.

“Rule obtained by the plaintiff to show cause why the record in this suit should not be remanded to the state court, from which it was sent to this. This was, a writ of ejectment, brought under the act of assembly of this state, passed the 21st of March 1806, 4 Smith, 332, and the supplement thereto, 4 Smith, 476, by the plaintiff, against Seymour Spafford, the tenant in possession, for a tract of land in the county of Wayne.

“This was an action on the case brought to recover a balance due upon a judgment entered in the court of exchequer in Ireland, upon a bond and warrant of attorney to confess judgment, and also the amount of a note of hand for £300 sterling, which, by a settled account between the parties, it was agreed was to be paid out of the proceeds of a certain copper mine, in which these parties and others were concerned.

“This was an action to recover upwards of $2,000, being so much paid by the plaintiff for freight, shipping charges, duty, charges of importation, appraisement, land carriage to Boston, law and other expenses, on certain goods shipped at St John’s in New Brunswick, in December 1813, for account of the defendant, in the schooner George, and consigned to the plaintiff to forward to the defendant, residing in Philadelphia.