“Seabry brought an ejectment in this court against Ward, and is also plaintiff in an injunction bill to stay waste. The counsel for Ward, after stating that a bill of discovery was intended to be filed in reference to the land in controversy, moved that service of the subpoena upon the solicitor of Seabry, who resides in the state of New York, should be deemed sufficient . . .

“Rule to show cause why an exoneretur should not be entered on the bail piece, the defendant having given special bail, and having been duly discharged on the 13th of the present month under the insolvent law of this state. The writ in this suit issued in June, returnable to this term.

“This is an action for money had and received, to recover the sum of $6141, on the following case: on the 7th of May 1822, H. D. Watkins and Michael Doran borrowed from the defendants, the sum of $10,000, at respondentia, upon the specie, goods, &c. laden, or to be laden on board the ship Adriana, whereof Thomas Dixey was master, bound on a voyage from Philadelphia to Canton, and at and from Canton back to Philadelphia, at a premium of fourteen per cent. The bond is in the common form; but upon it is indorsed a memorandum, signed by H. D.

“This cause was argued at the last session of the court, and taken under advisement . . . When this cause was heard at the April term 1818(a), the nature of the proprietary title to the soil of Pennsylvania generally, and to the asserted manor of Springetsburg in particular, was fully examined and discussed by this court; and to the opinion delivered in that case, in relation to those parts of it, we now refer for the purpose of avoiding the unnecessary repetition of the same matter.

“This was an action of trespass brought in the Circuit Court for the district of Pennsylvania, by the Atlantic Insurance Company of New York, against John Conard, the Marshal of the district of Pennsylvania, for taking and carrying away certain teas, imported from Canton into the port of Philadelphia, on board the ships Addison and Superior. Pleas the general issue, and a special jurisdiction under a fi. fa. against the goods as the property of Edward Thomson. The suit was instituted, and tried under an agreement, which is recited in the following bond.” 

“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 cause came on to be re-tried, under the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States, to award a ven. fac.. de novo. See 3 Wheaton. When the cause was called for trial, the defendant objected, that the judgment of this Court upon a former trial, was still in force, and unreversed; as no writ of error had been sued out, to remove the record of that judgment into the Supreme Court; without which, that Court would not take jurisdiction of the cause.”

“Error, to the circuit court for the district of Pennsylvania. This was an action by the plaintiff in error, against the defendant in error, for an alleged infringement of the plaintiff’s patent right to the use of his improved hopper-boy, one of the several machines discovered, invented, improved, and applied by him to the art of manufacturing flour and meal, which patent was granted on the 22d January, 1808. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and gave the notice hereafter stated.

“This is an action brought upon a bill of exchange drawn by the defendant, on the 10th of May 1811, at St. Barts, for value received there, in favour of the plaintiff, on himself, at Philadelphia, 90 days after sight, which was regularly noted for non-acceptance, and protested for non-payment. This action was brought on the 4th of May 1812; to which the defendant pleaded in bar, his discharge, under a law of this state, passed on the 13th of March 1812, for the relief of insolvent debtors; obtained provisionally on the 23d of April, and finally on the 29th of May 1812.

“These causes came before the court upon rules to show cause why the proceedings in both should not be stayed, and the causes dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and why the writ of inquiry, and all proceedings under it, in the first case, should not be quashed.