“Debt for the penalty of 500 dollars against the defendant, master of a coasting vessel, for suffering the locks and fastenings, put on the hatches of the vessel, by an inspector of the customs, to be broken, contrary to the 54th section of the Revenue Collection Act of 2d of March, 1799, ch. 128. The defendant pleaded nil debet, on which issue was joined.

“Assumpsit with the common money counts. The defendant pleaded in bar of the action the statute of limitations of the State of New-York, where the contract was made, to which the plaintiffs demurred. The question raised in the present case, is whether the limitation act of the state, where a contract is made, shall govern the decision of this court, sitting in another state, in which judicial proceedings are instituted for the purpose of enforcing the contract.”

“Case for an infringement of certain patent rights, granted to the plaintiff. There were two counts on two distinct patents in the declaration, but the first was the only one relied on at the trial, being on a patent for ‘an improvement on the double speeder for roping cotton,’ &c. The cause was tried on the general issue. The patent was dated the 3d of April, 1819, and the specification annexed to it, contained a very minute description of the double speeder as improved by the plaintiff, under distinct articles.

“Case for infringing a patent for ‘a new and useful improvement of a spinning frame for spinning cotton,’ invented by Paul Moody, and assigned by him to the plaintiffs. The patent was dated the 17th of January, 1818, and the assignment the 14th of January, 1819.

“The policy in question, was effected on the 27th of June, 1807, on goods, the property of the plaintiff, an American citizen, on board the Little William, belonging to Jacob Sperry, also an American citizen, at and from Philadelphia to Tonningen, or Hamburg, if not blockaded; warranted American property, proof whereof to be made here. She sailed on the voyage insured, on the 3d of July 1807.

“This cause came on to be retried at this term. The evidence given at the last term, was again produced, and in addition thereto, a complete record of the proceedings in the Vice Admiralty Court at Halifax, was produced, and read. In it is stated at length, the following papers. A passport from the Spanish Consul, at Charleston, to the plaintiff, 17th February 1799, to go to Laguira, to attend to his concerns there.

“This was an action to recover damages for the invasion of the plaintiff’s patent right to a machine for rounding iron. It appeared in evidence, that the defendant, Kanowrs, was a farmer, and had on his farm, a common tilt or hammer and anvil, worked by water. The plaintiff, a German, and poor; informed Kanowrs, that he had invented a machine for rounding iron; but, from want of funds, had not been able to bring his theory to practice.

“Action of indebitatus assumpsit, for money had and received to use of bankrupts, and goods sold and delivered by them. Plea, non assumpsit, and notice to offset. The case was—Anthony & Pleasants, having shipped a cargo of tobacco and flour to John Waring, in Bristol, and intending to ship more; drew bills, as they were permitted to do, on Waring, for two-thirds the cost of those cargoes; which they got the defendants in Philadelphia, to endorse and negotiate for them on the usual commission.

“Rule for a new trial; the jury having found, contrary to the charge of the Court, which laid down, as the rule for estimating the damages, the loss which the plaintiff had sustained by the misconduct of the defendant, in violating his orders. The jury have given only the principal sum due, without interest; have allowed the defendant his commissions, though he claimed none; and have rated the exchange at par, when it was higher. Besides which, they have said, that the plaintiff shall not have costs.”

“A rule was obtained at the October term, in 1803, to set aside the nonsuit entered in this cause; and the question now came on to be argued . . . in an ejectment, the plaintiff must show, and it is enough for his purpose, if he does show a right of entry; or, in other words, a right of possession. If he prove twenty years’ possession, or the seisin of his ancestor, and a descent cast, it is in general sufficient, prima facie, unless the defendant show a better right.