“This was an action of assumpsit brought in the Circuit Court of Massachusetts, against the defendant, as the maker of two promissory notes, both dated at New York, on the 22nd of March, 1811, for the sum of 771 dollars and 86 cents each, and payable to the plaintiff one on the 1st of August, and the other on the 15th of August, 1811. The defendant pleaed his discharge under ‘An act for the benefit of insolvent debtors and their creditors,’ passed by the legislature of New York, the 3d day of April, 1811.

The decisions of the board of Commissioners under the acts of Congress providing for the indemnification of claimants to public lands in the Mississippi Territory, (commonly called the Yazoo lands,) are conclusive between the parties in all cases within the jurisdiction of the Commissioners.

“Error to the District Court of Louisiana. This was a suit brought by petition, according to the course proceedings in Lousiana, by Webb, the defendant in error, against Nicholls, the plaintiff in error, upon a promissory note, dated the 15th of January, 1819, made by one Fletcher, for the sum of 4880 dollars, payable to the order of Nicholls, at the Nashville Bank, and endorsed by Nicholls, by his agent, to Webb. The answer of the defendant below denied such a demand, and notice of non-payment, as were necessary to render him liable as endorser.

“Error to the district court of the United States for the district of Orleans, in a suit of equity, in which Sere & Laralde were complainants, against Pitot and others, defendants.

“Error to the circuit court for the district of Georgia, in a suit of equity. The bill states that the complainants’ testator and the defendant’s testator, together with three others, viz. Boisfeillet, Du Bignon, and Grand Closmesle, became joint purchasers of the islands of Sapelo, Blackbeard, Jekyll, and half of St. Catharine, on the coast of Georgia; that Dumoussay was the acting partner, and kept all the accounts, &c.

“Error to the Circuit Court of Pennsylvania. This was an action for the infringement of the same patent as in the preceding case of Evans v. Eaton, and was argued by the same counsel. The points involved will be found to be fully discussed in the argument of that case, to which the learned reader is referred. The following is the charge delivered to the jury in the Court below, which it is thought necessary here to insert . . . (1.) Such as respect the value of the plaintiff’s Hopperboy. (2.) The time of its discovery. (3.) The kind of machine used by the defendant.

“Error to the Circuit Court of Pennsylvania. This is the same case which was formerly before this Court, and is reported ante, vol. 3 p. 454; and by a reference to that report, the form of the patent, the nature of the action, and the subsequent proceedings, will fully appear. The cause was now again brought before the Court upon a writ of error to the judgement of the Circuit Court, rendered upon the new trial, had in pursuance of the mandate of this Court. Upon the new trial, several exceptions were taken by the counsel for the plaintiff, Evans.

“This was an action of debt brought in the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, upon a paymaster’s official bond, against the defendant in error, one of the sureties in that bond. The condition of the bond, as set out upon oyer, is in the following words, viz. ‘That whereas the above bounden John Hall is appointed paymaster of the rifle regiment in the army of the United States; now, if the said J. H.

“This was an action of debt, commenced by the United States, in the Court below, against the defendants in error, J. Kirkpatrick and others, as the obliges of a bond, given by them to the United States, on the 4th of December, 1813, conditioned for the true and faithful discharge of the duties of the office of Collector of direct taxes and internal duties, by Samuel M.

“Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New-York. This was a libel of information filed in the Court against certain goods imported from London on the ship Isabella, at the port of New-York, as forfeited under the 67th section of the collection act of the 2d of March, 1799, c.128.”