“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 . . .

“This was an action of debt brought in the district court against the defendant, master of the Placidia, a foreign vessel, to recover the penalty of $500, under, the fifty-seventh section of the duty law, 1 Story’s Laws, 624, for an alleged disagreement between the cargo on board and that reported in the manifest; there being found concealed on board twenty kegs of white lead more than were mentioned in the manifest. The jury found a verdict stating.

“This was an action of debt brought in the district court by the United States against the- defendants, upon a bond given by them to the United States, in the penalty of $5000. The district attorney, at the return term of the writ, entered up a judgment by default for the penalty, without assigning breaches, or calling for a plea, and issued a fieri facias for that sum, endorsed ‘$3373.

“This was an indictment containing four counts. First, for making a revolt; second, for piratically and feloniously running away with the vessel and goods to the value of $50; third, for laying violent hands on the captain to hinder his fighting in defence of his vessel; and fourth, yielding up the vessel to a pirate.

“Rule upon the plaintiffs to show their cause of action, and why the defendant should not be permitted to appear on common bail, having been discharged as an insolvent under the laws of the state of Maryland. The case was as follows: Swift, being a debtor to the United States in a considerable sum, applied to the secretary of the treasury to be discharged as an insolvent, upon surrendering all his estate to the United States, agreeably to the provisions of the act of congress.

“It was decided in this case, that to entitle the plaintiff to give in evidence a sheriff’s deed, it was necessary to produce the record of the judgment under which the sale of the land was made.”

“The bill states that John A. Holt, by his last will, devised all his real estate to his wife during her life, and after her decease, that the profits of the same should be enjoyed by his daughter, Catherine Sheneck, during her life; and after her death the said real estate to be sold by his executors, and the money thence arising to be equally divided amongst the grandchildren of the testator then living, share and share alike, except his grandson, Michael Cooper, who was to have two shares.

“The plaintiff excepted to the answer, so far as it denied that the defendant had any knowledge of the facts alleged in the bill to which the answer applied, without adding that he had no information or belief of the facts. The court decided the exception to be well taken, and ordered the defendant to put in a better answer.”