I now sit down to report to you the few decisions made during my last circuit. The Court at Phila. continued only two or three weeks in consequence of the sickness of Mr Binny who was concerned in almost all the arguable causes. The only Cases decided which may be considered as containing important principles are the two following.

1. Lessee of Lanning vs. London. The declaration was upon a demise of a tract of land unnecessarily described by boundaries, and at the trial the plf. discovered that the description applied to a tract of land to which he had no title which would have subjected him to a nonsuit if the deft had not consented to withdraw a Juror & continue the cause. The plf. afterwards moved to amend the declaration by describing the tract intended to be sued for, or by describing it generally in the usual form. This was opposed, & all the english & american cases applicable to the doctrine of Jeofails & amendments were cited on the one side & the other. It was decided that the english statutes extending only to amendments in matters of form, the courts professed to authorise them only in those cases. But then the question¹ which constantly occurred was, what was form & what substance? In deciding that question the cases are so contradictory as to make it difficult to deduce from them any intelligible principle. These difficulties it was obviously the design of the 32d Sect. of the Judiciary Act to remove, by permitting amendments in matters of substance. The first clause of this Section respects Jeofails in matters of form, & the second, amendments in all cases whatever whether in Substance or form, the Court being at the same time authorised to impose Just & reasonable terms upon the party applying so as to prevent injury to the other party. The amendment was accordingly allowed upon the following terms viz. payt of Costs—liberty to the deft to plead de novo & to avail himself at the trial of the act of limitations if he could do so were he now served with the declaration.

2. Benners admtrs. vs. Foulkrod Exectr of Holt. A suit at law had formerly been brought agt the present deft by the assignees of Benner a bankrupt under the bankrupt law of the U.S. to recover a pecuniary legacy devised by Holt to J.S. which was purchased by & assigned to Benner before his bankruptcy but which legacy was dependent upon a contingency which did not happen 'till some time after the bankruptcy & assignment. In that suit a verdict & Judgt were rendered in favor of the Assignees, and the sum recovered was duly satisfied by the executor. The Case now to be reported came on upon a bill in equity filed by the admtr. of Benner agt the same executor to recover the same legacy over again, upon the ground that the legacy, depending upon a contingency at the time of the bankruptcy & assignment did not pass under the Assignment.

The Court admitted that the legacy did not pass by the Assignment upon a Correct exposition of the bankrupt law of the U.S. and consequently that the assignees ought not to have recovered. But we decided that, independent of Benners Knowledge of that suit & of his acquiescence in the Judgt which were sufficient to shut the door of the Court of equity against him, he ought not to recover upon general principles of law—that a person who has once been compelled by the Judgt of a competent tribunal, (tho an erroneous one) to pay a sum of mony to one man, cannot be compelled in another action by the rightful owner to pay it over again, his conduct in defending the first suit having been in all respects fair & honest—that altho the right of the real owner is not barred by the first Judgt he not having been party or privy to it, yet his remedy is against the same deft—and that the mony recovered in the first action is mony recieved by the plf. in it to the use of the true owner, which the latter may recover of the former in an action for mony had & recieved. Cases referred to Le chevalier Assig[n]ee of Dormer vs. Lynch Doug. 170—Philips vs. Hunter 2 H. Blac. 402. Embree & Collins vs. Hanna 5 Johns. rep. 101.

The following cases are no otherwise important than as they contain some principles of practice which, when found to be correctly laid down, it is desirable should be uniform in the Circuit Courts. But this uniformity can only be brought about by publick or epistolary reports of the decisions.

3d—Bradford vs. Geiss. Decided that it is a good exception to an answer in chancery that after denying that the deft had any Knowledge of a fact charged in the bill, it omits to² deny that he had any information or belief of the fact. 1 New. Chy 179.

4th. Rogers vs. Abbot. Upon a motion for an injunction to restrain the deft from making and vending the plfs. patented improvement, the Court required besides an affidavit of the truth of the facts stated in the bill, a special affidavit that "the plf. was to the best of his Knowledge & belief the true & original inventor & discoverer of the improvement for which he had obtained a patent, & that the same had not to his Knowledge or belief been in use or been described in any publick work anterior to his said discovery" following the Spirit of the 6th Sect. of the patent act. The order for the injunction further required the plf. to bring his action for damages returnable to the first Court & to speed it to a trial.

5. Young vs. Potts. The deft in an original bill filed his answer not long previous to the Session of the Court, when he filed a Cross bill founded upon facts recently come to his knowledge a discovery of which from the plf. in the original bill was essential to a Just decision of the cause. The original cause having been set for hearing, the Court refused to let it be brought on before the Cross bill was answered.

I send you no report of the Case of Corfield vs. Coryell as you perused the opinion at large during the last Session of the Supreme Court. The points decided were considered by some of the bar so important that a Copy was taken with a view to publish it in Walsh's paper.

I shall be impatient to recieve a report of the Cases decided on your Circuit. Do not forget our Compact with Justice Thompson. Believe me to be very sincerely my dear Sir your friend & affect. Servt