“Error to the circuit court for the district of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs in error instituted a suit in the circuit court for the district of Pennsylvania against William Crammond, which, by the agreement of the parties, and other order of the court, was referred to arbitrators. An award was made in favour of the plaintiffs, and a judgement nisi was entered on the 20th of May, 1805. Exceptions were field and overruled; and a judgement was finally entered on the 15^th of May, 1806.

“Upon an affidavit that the defendant had not, until last night, discovered ground for an additional exception to the award; the Court permitted him to file it, saying; though the same reason might not have been a sufficient one to sanction the filing of exceptions originally, after the four days, because then the cause might be out of the reach of the Court; yet, as the cause is depending, an amendment may be made, where the proper foundation is laid for asking the indulgence.”

“Rule to show cause, why the foreign attachment issued in this case, should not be dissolved.

“A verdict having been rendered in this case, at April Sessions, 1807, and a new trial awarded, the cause now came on again to be tried. The defendant being indebted to the plaintiff, in a certain sum of money, was, in September, 1804, discharged under the insolvent law of this State.

“Rule to show cause why an exoneretur should not be entered on the bail-bond, the defendant having been discharged under the insolvent laws of Pennsylvania, passed in 1790 and 1798. This law only discharges the person from imprisonment or arrest, in any of the cases of creditors, returned as such by the debtor.”

“This action was brought on two policies of insurance, dated March and May 1806, on the ship Romulus, and on her freight, both valued: the former at and from New-York to Havana, and back again to New-York (a). On her return she was captured by a British privateer, the captain of which assigned, as the cause of the capture, that war was either declared, or would soon take place, between Great Britain and the United States. All the hands were taken out of the Romulus, but the captain, the mate, and a boy; who, under a prize-master and hands, were sent to Halifax.

“This was a policy effected by the plaintiff, for all persons interested, on goods on board the Hibberts, at and from Havana to New, York, to the amount of ten thousand dollars. The vessel and cargo were taken by a British ship of war; and it appearing, that the vessel and cargo belonged to British subjects, that they had been captured and carried into the Havana, and there proceeded against, she was ordered to be delivered up to the original owners, on salvage.

“This was an action on two policies; one on the Monongahela Farmer, and the other on her cargo, from New-York to Gibraltar; the former a valued, and the latter an open policy. The vessel sailed on the voyage insured, and was seized by two Spanish privateers, in the Gut of Gibraltar, and carried into Algesiras, where attempts were made to condemn her cargo, but without success; the cargo consisting of articles in general contraband of war, but within the exceptions of the treaty between Spain and the United States.

“Action on a policy of goods, on board the Liberty, lost or not lost, at and from Philadelphia to Charleston in South Carolina. The Liberty sailed from Philadelphia, on the 28th or 29th of August 1804, and the policy was signed on the 22d of September 1804. The vessel was found at sea, some time in September, turned bottom upwards. Great part of the cargo was thrown upon an island on the Carolina coast, and was sold, under a sentence of the District Court, and salvage paid thereout.

“This was an ejectment for a tract of land in Berks county. The plaintiff claimed under a warrant to Richard Hockley, and others, dated in 1762, which recited, that a former warrant had issued to the same persons for this land, and had been surveyed, but not returned. He then offered in evidence a survey of this land, rather a re-survey made by one Jacobs, who was not an authorized or commissioned surveyor; in virtue of a letter to him from the Surveyor General, in which he stated; that, at the request of Mr.