Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

gret of all who knew him; leaving behind him the character of an upright, enlightened, and humane judge, a patriotic citizen, and a bright ornament of the profession. Isque et oratorum in numero est habendus, et fuit reliquis rebus ornatus, atque elegans.

RULE OF COURT.

February Term, 1823.

No cause will hereafter be heard, until a complete record shall be filed, containing in itself, without references aliunde, all the papers, exhibits, depositions, and other proceedings, which are necessary to the hearing in this Court.

MEMORANDUM.-Mr. Justice TODD was absent, from indisposition, during the whole of this Term ; and Mr. Justice LIVINGSTON was absent, from the same cause, from Monday, the 24th of February, until the end of the Term.

OF

THE NAMES OF THE CASES

REPORTED IN THIS VOLUME.

A.

Anderson, (Nicholas v.) [CHANCERY. LOCAL LAW.]

Buel v. Van Ness, [CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. PRACTICE.]

B.
C.

365

312

Childress v. Emory, [PRACTICE. PLEADING. JURISDICTION.] 642 Corporation of Washington v. Pratt, [LOCAL LAW.]

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

681

495

Emory, (Childress v.) [PRACTICE. PLEADING. JURISDIC

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

642

261

CAL LAW.]

Fleckner v. U. S. Bank, [PROMISSORY NOTE. USURY. Lo

The Frances and Eliza, [INSTANCE COURT. NON-INTER

COURSE ACT.]

G.

Goldsborough v. Orr, [LOCAL LAW. COVENANT.]

Gracie v. Palmer, [CHARTER-PARTY.]

Gracie v. Palmer, [PRACTICE.]

Greeley v. United States, [CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTE.]

H.

Haywood, (Siglar v.) [PRACTICE. PLEADING.]

Hugh v. Higgs, [PRACTICE.]

[ocr errors]

Hughes v. Union Insurance Company, [INSURance.]

339

398

217

605

699

257

675

697

294

Hunt v. Rousmanier, [CHANCERY. LETTER OF ATTORNEY.] 174

[blocks in formation]

The Luminary, [INSTANCE COURT. REGISTRY ACT.]

M.

495

543

407

The Mary Ann, [INSTANCE COURT. SLAVE TRADE ACT.] 380

McIntosh, (Jolinson r.) [CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

543

N.

La Nereyda, [PRIZE.]

New-Haven, (Society v.) [CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. CHARI-
TABLE USE.]

Nicholls v. Webb, [PROMISSORY NOTE. EVIDENCE.]
Nicholas v. Anderson, [CHANCERY. LOCAL LAW.]

0.

Orr, (Goldsborough v.) [LOCAL LAW. COVENANT.]

P.

Palmer (Gracie v.) [CHARTER-PARTY.]
Palmer, (Gracie v.) PRACTICE.]

[ocr errors]

The Pitt, [INSTANCE COURT. NON-INTERCOURSE ACT.]
Pratt, (Corporation of Washington v.) [LOCAL LAW.]

R.

108

464

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

371

681

Rousmanier, (Hunt v.) [CHANCERY. LETTER OF ATTOR-
NEY.]

S.

The Sarah, [INSTANCE COURT. JURISDICTION.]

174

391

Siglar v. Haywood, [PRACTICE. PLEADING.

Sexton v. Wheaton, [CHANCERY. POST-NUPTIAL SETTLE-
MENT.]

229

675

Sneed v. Wister, [PLEADING. LOCAL LAW.]

690

Society, &c. v. New-Haven, [CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. CHA-
RITABLE USE.]

464

Spring v. S. C. Ins. Company, [CHANCERY. LIEN. ASSIGN

268

MENT.]

U.

Union Ins. Company, (Hughes v.) [INSURANCE.]

294

United States v. Wilson, [CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. PRAC

253

TICE.]

United States, (Greeley v.) [CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTE.]
U. S. Bank, (Fleckner v.) [PROMISSORY NOTE. USURY. Lo-
CAL LAW.]

339

ས.

W.

Van Ness, (Buel v.) [CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. PRACTICE.]

312

Webb, (Nicholls v.) [PROMISSORY NOTE. EVIDENCE.] 326 Wheaton, (Sexton v.) [CHANCERY. POST-NUPTIAL SETTLE

MENT.]

Wilson, (United States v.) [CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. PRAC

TICE.]

Wister, (Sneed v.) [PLEADING. LOCAL LAW.]

Wormley v. Wormley, [CHANCERY. TRUST. JURISDIC

TION.]

229

253

690

.421

REPORTS

OF

THE DECISIONS

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

FEBRUARY TERM, 1823.

[CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

GREEN and Others v. BIDddle.

The act of the State of Kentucky, of the 27th of February, 1797, concerning occupying claimants of land, whilst it was in force, was repugnant to the constitution of the United States, but it was repealed by a subsequent act of the 31st of January, 1812, to amend the said act; and the last mentioned act is also repugnant to the constitution of the United States, as being in violation of the compact between the States of Virginia and Kentucky, contained in the act of the legislature of Virginia, of the 18th of December, 1789, and incorporated into the constitution of Kentucky.

By the common law, the statute law of Virginia, the principles of equity, and the civil law, the claimant of lands who succeeds in his suit, is entitled to an account of mesne profits, received by the occupant from some period prior to the judgment of eviction, or decree. At common law, whoever takes and holds possession of land, to which another has a better title, whether he be a bonæ fidei or a malæ fidei possessor, is liable to the true owner for all the rents and profits which he has received: but the disseisor, if he be a bonæ fidei occupant, may recoup the value of the meliorations made by him against the claim of damages.

[blocks in formation]

1823.

Green

V.

Biddle.

Equity allows an account of rents and profits in all cases, from the time of the title accrued, (provided it does not exceed six years,) unless under special circumstances, as where the defendant had no notice of the plaintiff's title, nor had the deeds in which the plaintiff's title appeared in his custody, or where there has been laches in the plaintiff in not asserting his title, or where his title appeared by deeds in a stranger's custody; in all which, and other similar cases, the account is confined to the time of filing the bill.

By the civil law, the exemption of the occupant from an account for rents and profits is strictly confined to the case of a bonæ fidei possessor, who not only supposes himself to be the true owner of the land, but who is ignorant that his title is contested by some other person claiming a better right. And such a possessor is entitled only to the fruits or profits which were produced by his own industry, and not even to those, unless they were consumed.

Distinctions between these rules of the civil and common law, and of the Court of Chancery, and the provisions of the acts of Kentucky, concerning occupying claimants of land.

The invalidity of a State law, as impairing the obligation of contracts, does not depend upon the extent of the change which the law effects in the contract.

Any deviation from its terms, by postponing or accelerating the period of its performance, imposing conditions not expressed in the contract, or dispensing with the performance of those which are expressed, however minute or apparently immaterial in their effect upon the contract, impairs its obligation.

The compact of 1789, between Virginia and Kentucky, was valid under that provision of the constitution, which declares, that “no State shall, without the consent of Congress, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power :”—no particular mode, in which that consent must be given, having been prescribed by the constitution; and Congress having consented to the admission of Kentucky into the Union, as a sovereign State, upon the conditions mentioned in the compact.

The compact is not invalid upon the ground of its surrendering rights of sovereignty, which are unalienable.

This Court has authority to declare a State law unconstitutional,

upon the ground of its impairing the obligation of a compact between different States of the Union.

The prohibition of the constitution embraces all contracts, executed or executory, between private individuals, or a State and individuals, or corporations, or between the States themselves.

THIS was a writ of right, brought in the Circuit

« AnteriorContinuar »