“This was a libel against the schooner La Jeune Eugenie for being engaged in the slave trade. By an act passed by the Congress of the United States on the 2d of March, 1807, the importation of slaves into any port of the United States was prohibited after the 1st of June 1808; the time limited by the constitution of the United States, beyond which slaves could not be imported.

“This was a bill in equity brought by two of the heirs at law of Comfort Wheaton, deceased, which charged, that on the 9th of May, 1805, Comfort Wheaton was seized of certain real estate in Providence; that he was then infirm and weak, both in body and mind, being very old, viz.

“Debt on five obligations, executed by Joseph Hubbard as principal, and the defendant as surety, for certain sums of money, set forth in the declaration.

“Leave having being granted to amend the bill under the intimation of the court at the last term, the plaintiff now filed an amendment to the bill.

“Bill in equity brought by the United States, as trustees of the Newport Bank, against the defendants as administrators of the estate of Lewis Rousmaniere. The bill in substance states, that the Newport Bank is a bank of deposit of the United States for the revenue collected in that district, and agent for the collection of such revenue.

“The questions to be decided in this case arise out of a bill of exceptions, taken by the plaintiffs, to the charge and instructions of the Circuit Court to the jury upon the trial of the cause. The suit was founded on the official bond of Robert Swartwout, as navy agent, and with whom the defendant had become bound as one of his sureties.

“The bill-states the plaintiffs to have been, since the 10th of April 1821, owners of a grist mill, situated on a branch of the Speedwell river, in Morris county, New Jersey, which, with the pond, the waters flowing into it, and all other appurtenances, they purchased on that day, at a sale thereof made by the administrator of Ural Tuttle, under an order of the orphan’s court, and received a regular conveyance therefor.

“This ejectment was to recover four hundred and thirty acres of land in Luzerne county, surveyed in the name of David Brown. It is one of the sixteen surveys mentioned in the case of Lanning vs. London, &.c. ante, 159; and the same, or nearly the same evidence was given in both cases . . . Upon the trial of this case, the plaintiff' offered in evidence the sheriff’s deed of the 6th of May 1802, for one third of Eddy’s interest in the land conveyed by Thomas to Eddy and Hollenback, to Samuel W.

“On the 5th December,.182S, the complainants in this case filed their petition, Getting forth the following facts: That the petitioners are owners of one half part of the brig Seneca, now lying in this port; that the remaining half part belongs to Captain Henry Levely, who has had possession of the brig for several months, with the sole control of her: that he has proceeded on several voyages to the loss and dissatisfaction of the late owners, from whom the petitioners purchased the brig: that he now threatens to take the vessel to sea without their consent, and to their great detriment: th

“On the 27th December, Wharton, of counsel for the complainants in this case, moved for leave to enter an appeal from the decree of the court, rendered on the 23d December. Chauncey, for the captain and part owner opposed the appeal. The complainants must show that the decree made in this case is a final decree, coming within the act of Congress. If the petition was for the sale, or possession of the vessel, it was in nature of a possessory action; it was an application to the court for an order, which the court has decided it had no power to give.