“This was an appeal from the district court, where the appellant filed a petition praying to be paid the sum of $408. 10 cents, due to him for a certain number of water casks, and two barrels of vinegar, furnished the brig President, at Baltimore, where she then lay, in October 1821, as part of her outfits. The brig having performed a voyage from Baltimore, after the above articles were furnished, returned the following year to the port of Philadelphia, where she was libelled for sailors’ wages, and sold under a sentence of the district court.

“This was an action on the case for not keeping in safety Tom, a fugitive slave, the property of the plaintiff, who was delivered to him by the plaintiff’s agent and attorney, to be safely kept in the gaol at Doylestown. Upon the plea of the general issue, it was proved that the defendant was the clerk or deputy of the sheriff of Bucks county, in which the gaol was, at the time of the transaction which forms the subject of this suit.

“The jury were sworn to try four actions, on four different bills of exchange, drawn in New York, on Liverpool and London, by Jacob Barker, indorsed by the defendant’s intestate, and purchased in New York.by the treasurer of the United States for the use of the United States. Two of the bills were dated the 30th of July 1814, one for £8046. 6s. 5d. sterling, and the other for £10,000 sterling. They were protested for non-acceptance on the 25th of November in the same year, and for non-payment on the 27th of January 1815.

“The declaration is in the name of Henry Darst and two others of the same surname, and sets forth, that ‘they, by the name and description of Henry Darst & Co. and the defendant, entered into an agreement under their respective hands and seals,’ Thereof profert is made, whereby they agreed to sell to the defendant certain lands in the state of Ohio, for which the defendant was to pay a certain sum of money, for the breach of which contract this suit is brought. Pleas, covenants performed, and non est factum.”

“The plaintiff having filed a bill of discovery on the equity side of the court, in relation to a certain lot of ground, for the recovery of which an ejectment is now depending in this court, at the suit of the, lessee of Sebring; the solicitor of the plaintiff in equity, moved the court for an order, that service of the subpoena on the attorney of the plaintiff at law, should be considered as good service. The ground of the motion was, that the plaintiff' at law resides at New York, and cannot be personally served with process in this district.”

“Action of assumpsit by the president and directors of this company upon a note of hand, dated the 3d of September 1817, made by T. Burr, payable to defendants, one hundred and twenty days after date, negotiable at the bank of the plaintiffs, where it was discounted. On the 3d of January 1818 the note was regularly protested, according to the provisions of the act of incorporation of the state of Maryland.

“The defendants, merchants, residing in Philadelphia, purchased of the plaintiff, a merchant, residing in Baltimore, in the year 1817, a parcel of goods, for the price of which this suit is brought, and the declaration is for goods sold and delivered. At the same time, or soon after, the defendants gave their two notes of hand for the debt so contracted, dated in Philadelphia. The defendants were afterwards discharged from all their debts under the insolvent law of Pennsylvania, and obtained their certificate as the act directs.

“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 is an action brought upon a bill of exchange drawn by the defendant, on the 10th of May 1811, at St. Barts, for value received there, in favour of the plaintiff, on himself, at Philadelphia, 90 days after sight, which was regularly noted for non-acceptance, and protested for non-payment. This action was brought on the 4th of May 1812; to which the defendant pleaded in bar, his discharge, under a law of this state, passed on the 13th of March 1812, for the relief of insolvent debtors; obtained provisionally on the 23d of April, and finally on the 29th of May 1812.

“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.”