“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.

“This is an appeal from a decree of the district court.

“The defendants, merchants, residing in Philadelphia, purchased of the plaintiff, a merchant, residing in Baltimore, in the year 1817, a parcel of goods, for the price of which this suit is brought, and the declaration is for goods sold and delivered. At the same time, or soon after, the defendants gave their two notes of hand for the debt so contracted, dated in Philadelphia. The defendants were afterwards discharged from all their debts under the insolvent law of Pennsylvania, and obtained their certificate as the act directs.

“Action of assumpsit by the president and directors of this company upon a note of hand, dated the 3d of September 1817, made by T. Burr, payable to defendants, one hundred and twenty days after date, negotiable at the bank of the plaintiffs, where it was discounted. On the 3d of January 1818 the note was regularly protested, according to the provisions of the act of incorporation of the state of Maryland.

“The plaintiff having filed a bill of discovery on the equity side of the court, in relation to a certain lot of ground, for the recovery of which an ejectment is now depending in this court, at the suit of the, lessee of Sebring; the solicitor of the plaintiff in equity, moved the court for an order, that service of the subpoena on the attorney of the plaintiff at law, should be considered as good service. The ground of the motion was, that the plaintiff' at law resides at New York, and cannot be personally served with process in this district.”

“The declaration is in the name of Henry Darst and two others of the same surname, and sets forth, that ‘they, by the name and description of Henry Darst & Co. and the defendant, entered into an agreement under their respective hands and seals,’ Thereof profert is made, whereby they agreed to sell to the defendant certain lands in the state of Ohio, for which the defendant was to pay a certain sum of money, for the breach of which contract this suit is brought. Pleas, covenants performed, and non est factum.”

“The jury were sworn to try four actions, on four different bills of exchange, drawn in New York, on Liverpool and London, by Jacob Barker, indorsed by the defendant’s intestate, and purchased in New York.by the treasurer of the United States for the use of the United States. Two of the bills were dated the 30th of July 1814, one for £8046. 6s. 5d. sterling, and the other for £10,000 sterling. They were protested for non-acceptance on the 25th of November in the same year, and for non-payment on the 27th of January 1815.

“This was an action on the case for not keeping in safety Tom, a fugitive slave, the property of the plaintiff, who was delivered to him by the plaintiff’s agent and attorney, to be safely kept in the gaol at Doylestown. Upon the plea of the general issue, it was proved that the defendant was the clerk or deputy of the sheriff of Bucks county, in which the gaol was, at the time of the transaction which forms the subject of this suit.

“This was an appeal from the district court, where the appellant filed a petition praying to be paid the sum of $408. 10 cents, due to him for a certain number of water casks, and two barrels of vinegar, furnished the brig President, at Baltimore, where she then lay, in October 1821, as part of her outfits. The brig having performed a voyage from Baltimore, after the above articles were furnished, returned the following year to the port of Philadelphia, where she was libelled for sailors’ wages, and sold under a sentence of the district court.

“Error to the district court. It appeared from the agreement of counsel, that a suit was brought in the court below, by the United States against Joseph and Thomas Lea, and Perrit their surety, upon a duty bond, upon which a judgment was rendered, and the amount of it was paid.by the surety, to whom the bond was surrendered for his reimbursement out of the estate of Joseph Lea, in the hands of the defendants, voluntary assignees of all his estate.