“This case comes before the court upon a motion to take the bill for confessed, the subpoena having been returned served upon Cadwallader Evans, one of the defendants, who has not appeared and filed his answer within three months after the day of appearance, and after the filing of the bill. It appears by an affidavit, that the other defendant resides out of this district, and has not been served with process.”

“Rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted. See this case ante 159. The grounds for the new trial were, 1. That the presiding judge, in delivering the charge to the jury, stated, that the land in question did not lie within the bounds of the purchase made from the Indians by the treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768, contrary to the real fact; and that, labouring under this mistake, he gave no opinion as to the construction of the act of 1786, which it is admitted applied to the land lying, within that purchase.

“Upon the trial of this cause, the defendant made the following objections to the execution of a commission issued to Hayti:—1. That it appeared; from the deposition taken under this commission, and from the certificate of the persons to whom it was directed, that the deposition of the witness was not committed to writing by him under the sanction of an oath, but was written and signed by him many days before the oath was administered. 2. That the general interrogatory is not answered at all, or even noticed. 3.

“This was a bill for dower in two tracts of land, which had been sold and conveyed by the husband on the 28th of October 1776 to P. Marchinton, who conveyed the same to general Humpton, under whom the defendant claims, and for rents and profits since the institution of this suit. The answer admits the right of the plaintiff to dower in one of the tracts of land, but insists that considerable improvements have been placed upon the land by the defendant, and by general Humpton under whom he claims.

“After, the discharge of the two former rules, ante 317, Phillips entered a rule upon the plain tiff to show cause, why proceedings should not be staid on the bail bond, on payment of costs, and confession of judgment by the principal. He contended that, after assignment of the bail bond, the court will stay proceedings against the appearance bail on payment of costs, confessing judgment, and putting in and perfecting bail, as the court decided on one of the former rules.

“Action on a promissory note for $1519, given by the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant gave in evidence two recognizances entered into by one Ege to the defendant in the orphan’s court, with a special assignment, entered upon the records of that court, to the plaintiff, in August 1821, to be held by the said Kemmil as collateral security for the debt due by the said Wilson to him, to be collected by Kemmil, as he may think proper; and the balance due upon the recognizances, after discharging the said debt, to be paid by the said Kemmil to the said Wilson.”

“This was an action to recover the quarter-interest payable the 1st of October 1816, on $125,000, six per cent, funded stock of the United States, with interest from the 2d of October 1816, when it was received by the defendant, The declaration contained two counts, one upon a special agreement, which was fully proved by Mr Jones, and the other for money had and received to plaintiff’s use.

“This was an action to recover upwards of $2,000, being so much paid by the plaintiff for freight, shipping charges, duty, charges of importation, appraisement, land carriage to Boston, law and other expenses, on certain goods shipped at St John’s in New Brunswick, in December 1813, for account of the defendant, in the schooner George, and consigned to the plaintiff to forward to the defendant, residing in Philadelphia.

“This was an action on the case brought to recover a balance due upon a judgment entered in the court of exchequer in Ireland, upon a bond and warrant of attorney to confess judgment, and also the amount of a note of hand for £300 sterling, which, by a settled account between the parties, it was agreed was to be paid out of the proceeds of a certain copper mine, in which these parties and others were concerned.

“Rule obtained by the plaintiff to show cause why the record in this suit should not be remanded to the state court, from which it was sent to this. This was, a writ of ejectment, brought under the act of assembly of this state, passed the 21st of March 1806, 4 Smith, 332, and the supplement thereto, 4 Smith, 476, by the plaintiff, against Seymour Spafford, the tenant in possession, for a tract of land in the county of Wayne.