“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.

“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.

“Assumpsit on a policy of insurance dated the 2d of June, 1821, whereby ‘Robinson Potter for account of James Barker, or Robinson Potter, or both, made assurance,’ &c. ‘lost or not lost, arrived or not arrived, 4000 dollars, at and from Bristol in England, to a port of discharge in the United States, on cargo on board the brig Tom Hazard.’ The loss alleged was a total loss by the perils of the sea, in foundering at sea. Upon the trial of the case upon the general issue, the following facts were admitted or proved.

“Libel for mariners’ wages and salvage, certified from the District Court on account of the interest of the District Judge, pursuant to the statutes of 8th of May, 1792, ch 36, § 11, and of 3d of March, 1821, ch. 51. The original libel was for mariners’ wages; but as amended it wore a double aspect, asserting a right to wages, and if that could not be sustained, claiming a right to salvage equivalent to wages.

“This was a writ of error from the judgment of the District Court. The original action was assumpsit for money bad and received, brought by the United States against the defendant in error, as administrator of the estate of Col. John L. Tuttle, deceased. The defendant pleaded, 1. The general statute of limitations of Massachusetts, (substantially like the statute of 21 Jac. ch. 16, § 3,) to personal actions; 2. the statute of Massachusetts, limiting suits against executors and administrators to four years after the acceptance of the trust; 3.

“Libel on information of seizure for a violation of the Coasting Act of 1793, ch. 8, and the Revenue Act of 1799, ch. 128. At the trial at October Term, 1821, the acts of illicit trade being proved to be in Passamaquoddy Bay, the principal question was, whether they were done within the territorial limits of the United States, or within the British waters.

“Case agreed. On the 11th of December 1820, the plaintiff owned and possessed sundry promissory notes called bank notes, drawn and signed in due form by and on behalf of the defendants, whereby they promised to pay to different persons, or bearer, on demand, the several sums mentioned in the said notes, which were of the description following : one note, letter A, No. 583, for $100, payable to Benjamin Morgan or bearer; fifteen notes for $20 each, payable in like manner, and of the following letters and numbers, viz. H, 1492, G, 1489, &c.

“This was an action to recover the freight due for the carriage of a parcel of hides, from Maldonado to Philadelphia, shipped at that port, and deliverable as per bills of lading to A. Curcier of Philadelphia, or to his assigns, he or they paying freight. The declaration contains two sets of counts. One upon a special promise made by the defendant to Mr Von Lengerke, the agent of the plaintiffs, in the following terms: ‘as soon as you shall have adjusted the freight with A. Curcier, I will pay you, if he does not.’ 2.

“This case comes before the court upon a motion for an injunction. The plaintiff, by his bill, claims to be the proprietor of ‘an improvement on the horizontal circular plane or wheel, invented by him, for the purpose of gaining power by, applying animal weight to the propelling of boats on water, or to machinery on land;’ which, the bill charges, was secured to him by a patent dated the 17th of November 1819, and that the specification was filed in the patent office on the 13th of April 1818.

“This case came on upon cross motions to take the bill for confessed for want of an answer, and to dissolve the injunction. The defendant grounded his motion upon an answer sworn to by the defendant at Canton, in April last. It was objected to as an answer properly verified by oath, the only evidence of that fact being the certificate of three persons, witnesses to the signature of the defendant, who swore that they saw the defendant sign the same, and that he swore to the answer according to the laws of China.”