“Bill in equity for a fraudulent misrepresentation in the sale of a farm, as to the quantity of land. The cause was argued by Randolph for the plaintiff, and by Hunter and Robbins for the defendant, at the last term; and the opinion of the Court was now delivered, as follows . . . This cause was argued at the close of the last November Term of this Court, and derives some of its interest and importance from the character of the parties, who are both clergymen, and the nature of the bill, which contains charges of fraud and misrepresentation.

“This was a writ of error from the District Court of Maine. The action was brought by the United States as indorsees of a promissory note made by the defendants at Eastport on the 10th of February, 1826, whereby for value received they promised to pay the president, directors, and company of the bank of Passamaquoddy or order, three months after date, the sum of twenty-three hundred and thirty-three dollars and thirty-three cents; and afterwards the bank, by its cashier, indorsed the same to the United States.

“Assumpsit on a policy of insurance of 2500 dollars on the schooner Warren, at and from Philadelphia to Alvarado, valued at 2500 dollars. Loss averred to be total by perils of the seas. 2. Count, on a policy of 1200 dollars on the freight on board of the same vessel, valued at 1200 dollars. Loss averred to be total in like manner. 3. Count, money had and received. Plea, the general issue.”

“This case came before the court upon a motion to dissolve the injunction granted on the 24th day of April 1821, and a rule obtained by the plaintiff to show cause why the bill should not be taken pro confesso. The bill was filed with an affidavit and prayer for an injunction in November 1816, soon after the action at law, sought to be enjoined, was brought. It states, in substance, that after the plaintiff had given to the defendant, a Hong merchant at Canton, the notes on which the suit was brought, he placed in the hands of Mr Benjamin C.

“Action on a protested bill of exchange, dated 19th of May 1807, drawn by the defendant, at New Orleans, in favour of the plaintiff, at sixty days after sight, on James Brown & Co. of Philadelphia, for 600 dollars—pleas, 1st, non assumpsit; and 2d, non assumpsit, within six years; and issue joined, with leave to the plaintiff, by the agreement of the parties, to give any legal evidence to prove a new promise, or the inapplicability of the Act of Limitations.

“This was an action on the case, The declaration contains a great number of counts; but the only two which it is necessary to notice are founded, 1. Upon a bill of exchange drawn by the defendant at New Orleans for $600, upon James Brown & Co. of Philadelphia, in favour of the plaintiff, in the year 1806; and 2. On a promise made by the defendant to the plaintiff in the year 1809; that if the plaintiff would indulge him he would pay the bill, if he should ever be able to do so, with an averment that he did indulge the defendant, and that he was able to pay. Plea, non assumpsit.

“This case come before the court upon two rules to show cause, 1. Why the judgment should not be arrested. And 2. Why a new trial should not be granted? 1. In support of the first rule, certain exceptions were taken to the second, third, fourth and fifth additional counts in the declaration. We shall direct our attention principally to the fourth count, because this was the one which the counsel seemed to consider the most faulty.

“The plaintiffs, about eighty or one hundred in number, assert themselves to be the next of kin, on the paternal side, to Charles White, who died intestate in the city of Philadelphia some time in the month of January in the year 1816. The intestate was one of the numerous French neutrals, as they were called, who were deported from Nova Scotia in the year 1756 by order of the British government. The bill alleges that he was the son of Charles White, who died, leaving two sons, Francis and the intestate, and four brothers and two sisters, the ancestors of the plaintiffs.

“This is an appeal from a pro forma decree of the district court, which dismissed the libel of the appellant, surgeon on board the Mercury, for salvage. The libel sets forth, that the ship sailed from Philadelphia to Calcutta in the year 1809, where she took in a valuable cargo, and on her return voyage, was, on the 8th of May 1810, when near the island of Madagascar, captured as prize by a French national frigate.

“This was an ejectment brought to recover a tract of land called the lower or Griffith farm, containing one hundred and seventy-seven acres; and the cause came before the court for judgment, upon a case agreed, with liberty to either party to turn it into a special verdict.