“This was an action to recover the quarter-interest payable the 1st of October 1816, on $125,000, six per cent, funded stock of the United States, with interest from the 2d of October 1816, when it was received by the defendant, The declaration contained two counts, one upon a special agreement, which was fully proved by Mr Jones, and the other for money had and received to plaintiff’s use.

“Action on a promissory note for $1519, given by the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant gave in evidence two recognizances entered into by one Ege to the defendant in the orphan’s court, with a special assignment, entered upon the records of that court, to the plaintiff, in August 1821, to be held by the said Kemmil as collateral security for the debt due by the said Wilson to him, to be collected by Kemmil, as he may think proper; and the balance due upon the recognizances, after discharging the said debt, to be paid by the said Kemmil to the said Wilson.”

“After, the discharge of the two former rules, ante 317, Phillips entered a rule upon the plain tiff to show cause, why proceedings should not be staid on the bail bond, on payment of costs, and confession of judgment by the principal. He contended that, after assignment of the bail bond, the court will stay proceedings against the appearance bail on payment of costs, confessing judgment, and putting in and perfecting bail, as the court decided on one of the former rules.

“This was a bill for dower in two tracts of land, which had been sold and conveyed by the husband on the 28th of October 1776 to P. Marchinton, who conveyed the same to general Humpton, under whom the defendant claims, and for rents and profits since the institution of this suit. The answer admits the right of the plaintiff to dower in one of the tracts of land, but insists that considerable improvements have been placed upon the land by the defendant, and by general Humpton under whom he claims.

“Upon the trial of this cause, the defendant made the following objections to the execution of a commission issued to Hayti:—1. That it appeared; from the deposition taken under this commission, and from the certificate of the persons to whom it was directed, that the deposition of the witness was not committed to writing by him under the sanction of an oath, but was written and signed by him many days before the oath was administered. 2. That the general interrogatory is not answered at all, or even noticed. 3.

“Rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted. See this case ante 159. The grounds for the new trial were, 1. That the presiding judge, in delivering the charge to the jury, stated, that the land in question did not lie within the bounds of the purchase made from the Indians by the treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768, contrary to the real fact; and that, labouring under this mistake, he gave no opinion as to the construction of the act of 1786, which it is admitted applied to the land lying, within that purchase.

“This case comes before the court upon a motion to take the bill for confessed, the subpoena having been returned served upon Cadwallader Evans, one of the defendants, who has not appeared and filed his answer within three months after the day of appearance, and after the filing of the bill. It appears by an affidavit, that the other defendant resides out of this district, and has not been served with process.”

“This is an action for money had and received, to recover the sum of $6141, on the following case: on the 7th of May 1822, H. D. Watkins and Michael Doran borrowed from the defendants, the sum of $10,000, at respondentia, upon the specie, goods, &c. laden, or to be laden on board the ship Adriana, whereof Thomas Dixey was master, bound on a voyage from Philadelphia to Canton, and at and from Canton back to Philadelphia, at a premium of fourteen per cent. The bond is in the common form; but upon it is indorsed a memorandum, signed by H. D.

“Rule to show cause why an exoneretur should not be entered on the bail piece, the defendant having given special bail, and having been duly discharged on the 13th of the present month under the insolvent law of this state. The writ in this suit issued in June, returnable to this term.

“Seabry brought an ejectment in this court against Ward, and is also plaintiff in an injunction bill to stay waste. The counsel for Ward, after stating that a bill of discovery was intended to be filed in reference to the land in controversy, moved that service of the subpoena upon the solicitor of Seabry, who resides in the state of New York, should be deemed sufficient . . .