“Upon a motion for an injunction to restrain the defendant from making and vending the plaintiff’s improvement for which he had obtained a patent, the court required the plaintiff to subjoin to his bill a special affidavit of the truth of the allegations of the same; and that he is, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the true and original inventor and discoverer of the improvement for which he had obtained his patent; and that the same had not, to his knowledge or belief been in use, or been described in any public work, anterior to his said invention and discovery.

“The plaintiff excepted to the answer, so far as it denied that the defendant had any knowledge of the facts alleged in the bill to which the answer applied, without adding that he had no information or belief of the facts. The court decided the exception to be well taken, and ordered the defendant to put in a better answer.”

“The bill states that John A. Holt, by his last will, devised all his real estate to his wife during her life, and after her decease, that the profits of the same should be enjoyed by his daughter, Catherine Sheneck, during her life; and after her death the said real estate to be sold by his executors, and the money thence arising to be equally divided amongst the grandchildren of the testator then living, share and share alike, except his grandson, Michael Cooper, who was to have two shares.

“It was decided in this case, that to entitle the plaintiff to give in evidence a sheriff’s deed, it was necessary to produce the record of the judgment under which the sale of the land was made.”

“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.

“Banks, as representative of Hunter, Banks & Co., and North & Co. respectively petitioned the district court (the first in 1796, and the second in 1794,) to be allowed to appeal from the refusal of the auditor of public accounts to admit their respective claims against the commonwealth for the value of some vessels and cargoes impressed into the service of the state by order of the executive early in the year 1781.

“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 is a motion, that the appearance of Fernando Arredondo, one of the defendants, be entered in this Court, for the purpose of removing the cause from the State Court, where it was commenced, pursuant to the act of Congress in such case made and provided . . .

“This case has been certified into this Court, from the Northern District of this state, under the provisions of the judiciary act the judge of that Court having been the District Attorney by whom the suit was commenced. The question arises upon demurrer to the declaration.

“The libel filed in this case in the Court below, alleges a forfeiture of the merchandise therein set forth, by reason of a false entry of the goods at the custom-house. It is founded upon the 22d section of the act of the 20th April, 1818. Upon the trial a bill of exceptions was taken, and the case comes before this Court upon a writ of error.”