“On the 27th December, Wharton, of counsel for the complainants in this case, moved for leave to enter an appeal from the decree of the court, rendered on the 23d December. Chauncey, for the captain and part owner opposed the appeal. The complainants must show that the decree made in this case is a final decree, coming within the act of Congress. If the petition was for the sale, or possession of the vessel, it was in nature of a possessory action; it was an application to the court for an order, which the court has decided it had no power to give.

“On the 5th December,.182S, the complainants in this case filed their petition, Getting forth the following facts: That the petitioners are owners of one half part of the brig Seneca, now lying in this port; that the remaining half part belongs to Captain Henry Levely, who has had possession of the brig for several months, with the sole control of her: that he has proceeded on several voyages to the loss and dissatisfaction of the late owners, from whom the petitioners purchased the brig: that he now threatens to take the vessel to sea without their consent, and to their great detriment: th

“This ejectment was to recover four hundred and thirty acres of land in Luzerne county, surveyed in the name of David Brown. It is one of the sixteen surveys mentioned in the case of Lanning vs. London, &.c. ante, 159; and the same, or nearly the same evidence was given in both cases . . . Upon the trial of this case, the plaintiff' offered in evidence the sheriff’s deed of the 6th of May 1802, for one third of Eddy’s interest in the land conveyed by Thomas to Eddy and Hollenback, to Samuel W.

“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.”

“Indictment for resisting the execution of a habere facias possessionem issued from this court; returnable to the 11th of April 18221: The writ is set out in the indictment in base verba.

“This is an appeal from a pro forma decree of the district court, which dismissed the libel of the appellant, surgeon on board the Mercury, for salvage. The libel sets forth, that the ship sailed from Philadelphia to Calcutta in the year 1809, where she took in a valuable cargo, and on her return voyage, was, on the 8th of May 1810, when near the island of Madagascar, captured as prize by a French national frigate.

“The plaintiffs, about eighty or one hundred in number, assert themselves to be the next of kin, on the paternal side, to Charles White, who died intestate in the city of Philadelphia some time in the month of January in the year 1816. The intestate was one of the numerous French neutrals, as they were called, who were deported from Nova Scotia in the year 1756 by order of the British government. The bill alleges that he was the son of Charles White, who died, leaving two sons, Francis and the intestate, and four brothers and two sisters, the ancestors of the plaintiffs.