[...]applicable to appeals under the act of 1803 and are to be substantially observed,1 except not where the appeal is prayed at the same Court term when the decree or sentence is made, a citation is not necessary (Reily vs. Lamar & others 2 Cra. 349.)2 It follows that an appeal in admiralty, & equity & prize causes may be taken3 at any time within five years from the final decree or sentence being pronounced subject to the saving contained in the 22 Sect of the Act of 1787, which is one of the points that was discussed at the bar.
This opinion is consistent with the case of the United States vs. Hooe 3 Cra. 73 altho from the report of that case it would seem to be otherwise. The record has been examined from which it appears that that case came up upon an appeal & not upon a writ of error—4
The writ of error in this case must therefore be dismissed.
To Henry Wheaton
Mount Vernon May 24. 1817
Dear Sir
After my return from Phila. I recd your letter requesting me to furnish you with the opinion delivered in the above case. Most fortunately I had preserved a rough copy of that opinion, or I am perfectly satisfied that it would not have been in my power to comply with your request. As this is the case I am rather pleased that you have been compelled to call upon me, since it has enabled me to correct a mistake in the opinion which was delivered, into which I was led by depending upon an abridgement for the want of the full reports of cases. Should we be subject in future to similar mortifications, it may well be excused so long as Congress shall think it right for the Judges of the S.C. to do without books. The dictim of Ld Cook as to the meaning of the word purview, stated in that opinion, is not to be found in the Books referred to. The meaning is not however without satisfactory support. <mutilated> I avail <myse>lf of this opp<or>tunity to request that instead of publishing the opinion in the case of Thelusson vs. Smith as an original opinion delivered in the Supreme Court, you will state it as the opinion which I gave in the Circuit Court, and which, being examined by the Supreme Court, I was directed to deliver as the opinion of that court. This is the way in which the opinion in the case of the Julia 8 Cranch 190 is stated & will explain my meaning. Should Mr Wallace ever publish the decisions of the Circuit Court of Pennsylva. it would appear awkward, to find the same opinion verbatim delivered in both courts without this explanation. I am dear sir very sincerely & respectfully yrs
Bush. Washington
N.B. In the opinion now sent, which has been very hastily written, I rely upon you to correct with freedom all errors in language.
Source Note
ALS, NNPM: Literary and Historical Manuscripts.
1. This appears to be a continuation of text from a previous page that has not yet been identified.
2. BW first wrote the case as "2 Cra. 349," a different writer later crossed out "Cra.," writing "Cranch" in a superscript, and crossed out the number 3 in "349." BW's citation was correct, the decision regarding citations can be found on page 349 of vol. 2 of Cranch.
3. After the word "taken" BW first wrote "& prosecuted" but crossed it out.
4. At this point in the text a different writer wrote a "(1)," adding their own note below this text. "(1) The cause was afterwards re-entered by consent of parties and continued for farther proof as if it had been removed by appeal.
Note: Because this document is only a verified first-pass transcription, it and the document metadata may still contain errors.