“This was a bill in equity. The facts were as follows: Peleg Gardner, of South Kingston, by his will, dated the 7th of July, 1817, having given his wife (one of the plaintiffs) a part of his mansion house and the use of one third of his stock &c. for her life, in lieu of dower, made the following devise: ‘I give and devise to my beloved son, Ezekiel W. Gardner, two third parts of all that my Ferry farm, so called, formerly owned by John Franklin, and now in the possession of the said Ezekiel W.

“Banks, as representative of Hunter, Banks & Co., and North & Co. respectively petitioned the district court (the first in 1796, and the second in 1794,) to be allowed to appeal from the refusal of the auditor of public accounts to admit their respective claims against the commonwealth for the value of some vessels and cargoes impressed into the service of the state by order of the executive early in the year 1781.

“This was an action of trespass against the defendant, the marshal of this district, for seizing certain teas imported into Philadelphia by Edward Thomson, in the ships Addison and Superior, under an execution at the suit of the United States against said Thompson; to which teas, the plaintiffs asserted a property in themselves.

“This is a motion to set aside an order entered in this cause on the 2d day of September, in this present term, dismissing the complainant’s bill with costs. The motion is founded on an affidavit stating, that the defendant died before such order was entered. It now appears that Hill died on the first day of this term. By the common law, the death of one of the parties before judgment, abates the suit. There can, therefore, be no doubt but that the order was irregularly entered, and must be set aside.

“On the 19th day of July, in the year 1813, Joseph Kauman, John I. Labouisse, and Nicholas M.

“This case comes up on a writ of error to the District Court for the Northern District of this state. And the question presented for consideration arises out of a special verdict, upon which judgment has been given for the defendant. The result depends entirely upon the construction and location of the deed from Robert Morris to Andrew Craigie, of the 6th of April, 1797, under which the lessors of the plaintiff claims . . .

“This is a motion to set aside the judgment entered in this cause during the present term, reversing the judgment of the District Court of the Northern District of this state. The motion is founded, on an allegation that the judgment was irregularly entered, being in violation of an order to stay the proceedings; and the motion is resisted on the ground, that the order was not duly served on the plaintiff’s attorney. The service was upon the law agent of the attorney in the Supreme Court of this state, and the first question is, whether this was a good service.”

“The application in this case is for a mandamus directed to the District Judge of the Northern District of this state, requiring him to vacate a rule which had been granted, allowing certain amendments of the record in this cause, and also to vacate and annul such amendments. If it was proper to enter into an examination of the regularity of such amendments, or the authority of the District Court, to allow them under the circumstances disclosed in the affidavits, the propriety of the amendments would at least be very questionable.”

“This is a motion, that the appearance of Fernando Arredondo, one of the defendants, be entered in this Court, for the purpose of removing the cause from the State Court, where it was commenced, pursuant to the act of Congress in such case made and provided . . .

“This case has been certified into this Court, from the Northern District of this state, under the provisions of the judiciary act the judge of that Court having been the District Attorney by whom the suit was commenced. The question arises upon demurrer to the declaration.