THE

FEDERAL CASES

COMPRISING

CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED
IN THE

CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURTS

OF THE

UNITED STATES

FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE BEGINNING OF THE FEDERAL REPORTER,
ARRANGED ALPHABETICALLY BY THE TITLES OF THE CASES,
AND NUMBERED CONSECUTIVELY

BOOK 1
Case No. 1—Case No. 564

WILLIAM S. HEIN & CO., INC.
BUFFALO, NEW YORK
1995

Library of Congress Catalog Number 95-75068

ISBN 0-89941-924-0

Printed in the United States of America.

The quality of this reprint is equivalent to the quality of the original work

This volume is printed on acid-free paper by William S. Hein & Co., Inc.

National Reporter System

United States Series

THE

FEDERAL CASES

COMPRISING

CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED

IN THE

CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURTS

OF THE

UNITED STATES

FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE BEGINNING OF THE FEDERAL REPORTER, ARRANGED ALPHABETICALLY BY THE TITLES OF THE CASES, AND NUMBERED CONSECUTIVELY

BOOK 1
AALESUND—ARTHUR
Case No. 1—Case No. 564

ST. PAUL
WEST PUBLISHING CO.
1894

COPYRIGHT, 1894,
BY
WEST PUBLISHING COMPANY.

PREFACE.

THIS series of reports, known as the Federal Cases, is a comprehensive compilation of the decisions of the United States Circuit and District Courts which have been rendered from the organization of the Government in 1789 to the first publication of the Federal Reporter in 1880. It constitutes, in conjunction with the Federal Reporter, a complete and consecutive series of reports, beginning with the first organization of the courts reported and continuing down to the last decision rendered.

Origin of the Enterprise.

In 1880 the Federal Reporter was established for the purpose of reporting the decisions of the United States Circuit and District Courts. It included all cases heard after January 1, 1880, and has become a repository of all current Federal decisions. This function has been performed so satisfactorily that within a few years it came to be recognized as the official Reporter of the Federal Courts.

The Federal Reporter had started in “in the midst of things.” Nothing else was possible, since there had to be a beginning. What lay back of 1880 was partly to be found scattered through the different series of Circuit and District Court Reports, none of which had ever been exhaustive, and many of which had long been out of print. Sometimes cases which attracted attention at the time had appeared in current periodicals. Sometimes they were published with the early State Reports, or in different series of Selected Cases. Some opinions found a place in several contemporaneous series, and some were never printed at all. This period has been aptly called by Judge HAMMOND “The Dark Continent of American Jurisprudence.”

After the Federal Reporter was fairly established, its publishers were frequently urged by Judges and practitioners in the United States Courts to gather up and republish the decisions of earlier date, so as to make the record of American Federal adjudications exhaustive. An annotated reprint would be more valuable than the original set, even at the same price; yet it could be made much cheaper. Theoretically, the plan was an admirable one, but the practical difficulties in the way of obtaining the earlier Federal cases, scattered as they were, made it seem at first impracticable. But the requests for the work were so frequent that the publishers were finally led to issue an experimental circular, and canvass the field to see whether there were really sufficient demand to make the formidable undertaking commercially feasible. The results of this inquiry were so satisfactory that the plans of the publication were at once elaborated, and no time was lost in beginning the collection of cases and material. This involved great labor and expense,—greater even than had been anticipated,—and it has now only been accomplished after five years of busy preparation.

The publishers and the editors have studied the peculiar conditions of the problem of how best to make this great mass of heterogeneous material available for the use of the Bench and Bar. They have worked out a method of treatment of these cases which seems specially adapted to bring the scattered reports together into a complete and consecutive series, to be their final repository.

Sources of Material.

It is the purpose of Federal Cases to cover, with the Federal Reporter and the United States Supreme Court Reports, the whole body of the law as it has been administered by the Federal courts. The successful accomplishment of this end requires

1 FED. CAS.

not only the republication, entire, of all of the old Circuit and District Court Reports, but also all Federal cases which can be brought to light by an exhaustive examination of the United States Supreme Court Reports, the law periodicals, state reports, text books, and other works likely to contain such cases, and an unremitting search for all accessible decisions whether to be found in pamphlets, in any of the great libraries, in the hands of individuals, or in the records of the courts. In this way several thousand decisions have been discovered which are not to be found in what is generally regarded as a complete Federal library. Prominent among these unpublished decisions might be mentioned the opinions of Judge BETTS in the Southern District of New York, which are on file in the office of the clerk of the court, in a series of manuscript books in the handwriting of the judge. These manuscript books are in two series, denominated for convenience, Circuit Court MS. and District Court MS., respectively. There are also a great many valuable cases largely from the same district, but some from other districts, which were collected by Judge BETTS from newspapers and similar publications and preserved in the form of a scrap-book. A similar scrap-book collection of cases has been found in the office of the clerk for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Attention is called to the large number of new admiralty decisions, including many of the most important of those of Judge BETTS, and the cases received from the Southern District of Florida, which for many years were preserved in manuscript in what is locally known as the Admiralty Records, comprising some twelve large volumes of recorded cases, containing the decisions of Judges WEBB; MARVIN, BOYNTON, and McKINNEY upon different questions of admiralty law. Many of these cases have been cited in recent decisions from that district and also in Judge MARVIN'S work on Wreck and Salvage. Most of them are of great importance, but comparatively few have ever been published. The unpublished decisions of Hon. JAMES W. LOCKE secured, through the courtesy of the judge, are mostly in admiralty, as are also many of those contained in the collections of the opinions of the late Judge HOFFMAN, in the California district, known as “Hoffman's Opinions” and “Hoffman's Decisions,” respectively, and published by permission of Judge HOFFMAN.

The case law relating to patents is enriched by many new decisions particularly in the Southern District of New York, and the Districts of Massachusetts and Connecticut. In the District of Columbia, MacArthur's Patent Cases includes all appeals from the decisions of the Commissioner of Patents after the period covered by Cranch's Circuit Court Reports, from the year 1841 to 1859. From 1859 to the establishment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia in 1863, a large number of patent cases were decided which were to have made the second volume of MacArthur's Patent Cases, but which has never appeared. Many of these decisions have been cited in Law's Patent Digest and elsewhere. They are enrolled in manuscript form, and are on file in the United States Patent Office. These opinions have all been copied and duly reported under their proper titles.

In addition to these special collections of cases, inquiry of the clerks of all of the Federal courts for unreported decisions has produced a large number of important opinions, as has also an exhaustive search of the files of the newspapers published during and prior to the late war, such, for instance, as the New York Daily Times and Niles' Weekly Register. It has been the constant aim to preserve every thing of importance, and no effort has been spared to make the reports of these cases full and complete in every respect.

Arrangement.

The most difficult problem in the publication of the Federal Cases, was to find a satisfactory method of arranging the decisions. Investigation and experiment showed that it was impracticable to arrange them chronologically,—or by Circuits and Districts, or by the original reports. The great object to be attained was to so arrange the cases that the reader can readily find any case, no matter how or where it may be cited. The publishers believe they have accomplished this purpose in the Federal Cases.

The cases in this series are reported in the alphabetical order of their titles. This alphabetical arrangement is rendered necessary by the fact that the same case

is frequently found reported in two or more reports, and also because the material for this compilation has been derived from a great variety of sources. It is also the best possible arrangement from a practical point of view in a compilation of this description. It applies to the cases in a series of reports the order and method always applied to a digest or an encyclopædia, and thereby greatly facilitates the discovery of the case wanted. An examination of any volume of this series will fully demonstrate the practical utility of this arrangement. Where there are two or more titles, the case is reported under that title which comes first in alphabetical order, and the other titles are printed in the series in their regular alphabetical order, with proper references to the title under which the case is reported. Where there are two or more cases of the same title, the cases are printed in the alphabetical order of the names of the respective reporters. (See, in illustration, The Alabama, Case No. 123, and The America, Case No. 279.) An elaborate system of cross-references has been devised, the title of every case appearing (in the form of a cross-reference) alphabetically under the name of each of the parties, and in many cases, where the names are spelled differently, under each different form of spelling, thus enabling the reader to turn to the case at once. The cases have also been numbered consecutively throughout the series. These numbers have been introduced for the purpose of furnishing a more specific and ready reference to a given case when such case is cited in the text or referred to in a cross-reference. (See, in illustration, references, already given and cross-references under Adams, page 157.) By this method of numbering the cases can be referred to specifically, in advance of their publication, saving the necessity of referring to the old reports which are superseded by the Federal Cases. When the entire series shall have been completed, every reference to every case embraced within the series will have the specific case-number citation,—a great aid in referring back and forth from one volume to another, which could not be secured in any other way.

Every effort has been made to render this duplex arrangement of the cases as effective as possible. Among other details the letters and numbers included in each volume are stamped on the back of the book. Each subscriber is also furnished with a printed table giving in alphabetical and numerical order the title of each case published in the series; also a table setting out in alphabetical order the original reports of the United States Circuit and District Courts, and giving in regular sequence the volume and page of each case found in such reports with a parallel reference to the number of such case in this series. A brief examination of these tables will demonstrate their value and utility.

Style of Reporting and Annotating.

The Federal Cases is essentially a verbatim reprint of the decisions; the cases with comparatively few exceptions being reprinted exactly as they appear in the original reports, headnotes, statement, and opinion, and all original matter supplied by the editors being indicated by the use of brackets. In the preparation of the cases for publication, the fact soon developed that the great majority of them had been published in more than one place, and in very many instances some one of these several reports of the same case is much more complete than any of the others, while one of the incomplete reports may contain important matter not to be found in the best report of the same case. It has been the intention to make the Federal Cases a verbatim reprint of all the reports of all the cases; and in doing this, the best reports of each case has been selected and indicated by being placed first among the references immediately following the title of the case itself. All matter from all other reports of that case, not included in the report adopted, is inserted in its proper place, inclosed in brackets, with a footnote stating the source from which it was secured; giving the reader the benefit of a careful comparison of every published report of all of the decisions. That this is a matter of considerable importance is evidenced by the fact that in some instances several paragraphs are added to the opinion of the court in this way, or important matter incorporated in the statement necessary to a clear understanding of the decision. (See, in illustration, In re Alexander, Case No. 161.) It should be understood that all matter inclosed in brackets is the result of the editorial treatment of the cases, unless there is a footnote explaining its source.

A page to page examination of all the reports of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Federal Reporter, and all cases included within this series, has been made for citations of the Circuit and District Court cases. These citations have all been carefully edited, and placed under the appropriate paragraphs of the syllabus of the cited case, stating in each instance whether in fact that case is cited, distinguished, followed, or overruled, as the case may be, in any later decision. In this way, each case gives the references to every place in which it has been subsequently referred to by any Federal court in any manner. Where a case is cited to a proposition not contained in the syllabus, such additional point will be stated briefly. Additional citations of authorities are also given with the more important cases; and where a case was afterwards taken to the Supreme Court, a reference is made to the opinion of the Supreme Court bearing directly upon the points involved in the case as reported below. This reference is appended as a note. Copious notes are also prepared showing subsequent changes in the law involved in any particular case where necessary. (See, in illustration, Adams v. The Sophia, Case No. 65, and Adams v. Burks, Case No. 50.)

The page to page examination of the reports produced a large list of cases cited which were apparently unreported. Special investigation has been made of every one of these unreported cases. A large number of them have been found, but in other instances the fact has developed that the court records have either been lost or destroyed, through the burning of a courthouse, or some other calamity, so that the case cannot be obtained, or for some reason the opinion, if one was written, is not now on file. Where these unreported cases have been obtained, they will be published in full. If they have not been found, a statement of the circumstances will be given, and such statement of the points decided as can be gleaned from the records and the various digests and text-books in which they were mentioned. (See, in illustration, The Alfred, Case No. 189.) In fine, it is the purpose to make this series exhaustive so far as the title of every Federal case anywhere cited or referred to is concerned, so that the reader may feel sure of either finding each case reported herein or of getting all the information about it that can be obtained anywhere.

Special acknowledgment should be made of the interest shown in the work by the Judges, many of them revising their own opinions in proof.

Special Matter in Book I.

The first volume of the series contains the following important tables:

1. A chronological table of the several circuits showing their geographical limits under the various acts of congress from 1789 to the present time. This table will aid in determining the circuit, of which any state was a part, at any given time.

2 and 3. A list of the judges arranged chronologically under their respective circuits and districts. A list of the judges arranged alphabetically without regard to their respective circuits and districts. The lists of Federal judges have been the result of a great deal of careful research and investigation. It is somewhat strange that no reliable list of Federal judges has ever been published. Fragmentary lists and memoranda of the judges' names for a particular district for a short period of time have appeared in various reports, but no complete list with any pretense to reliability has ever been prepared, so far as known. This list has been made up from a careful examination of the lists of names in all of the periodicals and reports. It has been checked carefully with the records in the departments at Washington, and also with the various biographical works and local histories. The aim has been to make this list complete, and as accurate as possible. In doing this, extended inquiry has been made of all the judges and clerks of the various courts and many other persons likely to possess information on the subject. The result obtained is what is believed to be the most reliable roll of Federal judges to be found anywhere. Special acknowledgments are due to many of the living judges for the great assistance they have rendered in this matter.

4. A table of the United States Circuit and District Court Reports arranged by circuits and districts.

5. A table of the reports, periodicals, and text-books examined for the United States Circuit and District Court cases therein reported and cited. The very extensive

character of this latter table will afford an idea of the great care and extent of the inquiries necessary to gather in all of the decisions in the Federal courts.

In presenting this series to the public, the publishers desire to express their obligation to the owners of the reports from which cases have been reprinted, and to the members of the Bench and Bar throughout the whole country who have so effectively aided in the development of these reports.

January 25, 1894.

WEST PUBLISHING COMPANY.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE
SHOWING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SEVERAL CIRCUITS.

NOTES TO PRECEDING PAGE.

1 Rhode Island added to Eastern Circuit by Act June 23, 1790. (1 Stat. 128.)

2 Vermont added to Eastern Circuit by Act Mar. 2, 1791, (1 Stat. 197.)

3 North Carolina added to Southern Circuit by Act June 4, 1790, (1 Stat. 126.)

4 Circuit court powers were conferred upon the district courts of the independent districts of Maine and Kentucky by Act Sept. 24, 1789, (1 Stat. 73;) and by Act Mar. 30, 1820, (3 Stat. 554,) Maine was added to the 1st Circuit.

5 Circuit court powers conferred upon the district courts of Tennessee by Act Jan. 31, 1797, (1 Stat. 496.)

6 Ohio, under Act Feb. 13, 1801, embraced Indiana. Territory and the Northwest Territory. By Act Feb. 24, 1807, (2 Stat. 420.) Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee were constituted the 7th Circuit; and by Act Jan. 28, 1863, (12 Stat. 637.) Ohio and Michigan were constituted the 7th Circuit.

7 Kentucky and Tennessee were made independent districts by Act Apr. 29, 1802, (note 5.)

8 Circuit court powers were conferred upon the district courts of the following independent districts:

1FED. CAS.–b

1FED.CAS.

9 Alabama and Louisiana constituted the 5th Circuit by Act Aug. 16, 1842, (5 Stat. 507.)

10 North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia constituted the 6th Circuit by Act Aug. 16, 1842, (5 Stat. 507.) South Carolina was divided into the Eastern and Western Districts by Act Feb. 21, 1823, (3 Stat. 726.) Circuit court powers were conferred upon the district court for the Western District by Act Aug. 16, 1856, (11 Stat. 43.) A circuit court for the Western District was established by Act Feb. 6, 1889. (25 Stat. 655.) Act April 26, 1890, (26 Stat. 71,) regulates the terms of the circuit court for the “district of South Carolina, and of the district courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of South Carolina, respectively”

11 Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin constituted the 8th Circuit by Act Jan. 28, 1863, (12 Stat. 637;) and Wisconsin was transferred to 9th Circuit by Act Feb. 9, 1863, (12 Stat. 648.)

12 California constituted a separate circuit by Act Mar. 2, 1855, (10 Stat. 631;) and, with Oregon, constituted the 10th Circuit by Act Mar. 3, 1863, (12 Stat. 794.)

14 West Virginia, comprising part of the territory of Virginia, was admitted as a state June 20, 1863. (13 Stat. 731.)

15 Certain circuit court powers were conferred on the district court of Alaska; and writs of error in crimina cases were authorized to issue from the circuit court for the district of Oregon to the district court of Alaska, by Act May 17, 1884, (28 Stat. 24.)

16 Circuit court established by Act Feb. 6, 1889, (25 Stat 655.)

17 Louisiana, Texas. Arkansas, Kentucky, and Tennessee constituted the 6th circuit by Act July 15, 1 62, (1 Stat. 576.)

18 Ohio and Indiana constituted the 7th circuit by Act July 15, 1862, (12 Stat. 576.)

19 Michigan, Wisconsin, and Illinois constituted the 8th circuit by Act July 15, 1862, (12 Stat. 576.)

20 Missouri, Iowa, Kansas, and Minnesota constitute the 9th circuit by Act July 15, 1862, (12 Stat. 576.)

FEDERAL JUDGES.

ARRANGED CHRONOLOGICALLY UNDER THEIR RESPECTIVE CIRCUITS AND DISTRICTS.

¹ Organized as eastern, middle, and southern circuits by Act Sept. 24, 1789, (1 Stat. 74, § 4.) Reorganized by Act Feb. 13, 1801, (2 Stat. 90.) as first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth circuits. No complete record can be found of the allotment of the justices to the several circuits, under Act April 13, 1792, (1 Stat. 253, § 3,) which provided that at each session the supreme court shall assign to the justices, respectively, “the circuits which they are to attend at the ensuing sessions of the circuit courts.” The justices of the supreme court did not sit in the circuit courts from February 13, 1801, (2 Stat. 90,) until April 29, 1802, (2 Stat. 156.)

² The words “circuit justice” are used throughout the Federal Cases “to designate the justice of the supreme court who is allotted to any circuit.” (Rev. St. 605;) though they do not appear to have had any such contemporaneous use prior to the enactment of that section.

³ Organized by Act Feb. 13, 1801, (2 Stat. 90.) Abolished by Act March 8, 1802, (2 Stat. 132.) Reorganized by Act April 29, 1802, (2 Stat. 156.)

⁴ Organized by Act Feb. 13, 1801, (2 Stat. 90.) Abolished by Act March 8, 1802, (2 Stat. 132.) Reorganized by Act April 29, 1802, (2 Stat. 156.)

⁵ Organized by Act Feb. 13, 1801. (2 Stat. 90.) Abolished by Act March 8, 1802, (2 Stat. 132.) Reorganized by Act April 29, 1802, (2 Stat. 156.)

⁵ See note 5, on page xiv.

⁶ Organized by Act Feb. 13. 1801, (2 Stat. 90.) Ab?hed by Act March 8, 1802, (2 Stat. 132.) Reorganized by Act April 29, 1802, (2 Stat. 156.)

⁷ Organized by Act Feb. 24, 1807, (2 Stat. 420.)

⁸ Organized by Act March 3, 1837, (5 Stat. 176.)

⁹ Organized by Act March 3, 1837, (5 Stat. 176.)

¹⁰ Organized by Act March 3, 1863, (12 Stat. 794.) Abolished by Act July 23, 1866, (14 Stat. 209, c. 210.)

¹¹ Organized by Act March 2, 1855, (10 Stat. 631.) Abolished by Act March 3, 1863, (12 Stat. 794,) creating the tenth circuit.

¹² Organized by Act Feb. 27, 1801, (2 Stat. 105, § 3.) Abolished by Act March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. 764, § 16.)

¹³ See note 38, on page xxi.

¹³ Organized by Act April 21, 1830, (3 Stat. 564.) Divided by Act March 10, 1824, (4 Stat. 9,) into northern and southern districts, and by Act Feb. 6, 1839, (5 Stat. 315,) into northern, middle, and southern districts.

¹⁴ The jurisdiction of the district judge for the districts of Alabama was confined to the northern and middle districts, and the appointment of a district judge for the southern district was authorized, by Act Aug. 2, 1886, (24 Stat. 213, c. 842.)

¹⁵ Organized by Act May 17, 1884, (23 Stat. 24, § 3.)

⁵⁵ See note 56, on page xxiv.

¹⁶ Organized by Act June 15, 1836, (5 Stat. 51, § 4.)

¹⁷ Organized by Act March 3, 1851, (9 Stat. 594, c. 24.) The appointment of a judge for each district was authorized by Act March 3, 1871, (16 Stat. 472, § 5.)

¹⁸ Organized by Act July 27, 1866, (14 Stat. 300.) Abolished by Act Aug. 5, 1886, (24 Stat. 308.)

¹⁹ Organized by Act Sept. 28, 1850, (9 Stat. 521.) Abolished by Act July 27, 1866, (14 Stat. 300.) Reorganized by Act Aug. 5, 1886. (24 Stat. 308.)

²⁰ Organized by Act June 26, 1876, (19 Stat. 61, c. 147.)

²¹ Organized by Act Sept. 24, 1789, (1 Stat. 73.)

⁵⁶ See note 56, on page xxiv.

²¹ Organized by Act Sept. 24, 1789, (1 Stat. 73.)

²² Organized by Act March 3. 1845, (5 Stat. 788.) Abolished by Act Feb. 23, 1847, (9 Stat. 131.)

²³ Organized by Act Feb. 23. 1847. (9 Stat. 131.) Under Act May 23, 1828, (4 Stat. 291,) the superior court for the southern district of Florida was created, with certain admiralty jurisdiction. The judges were James Webb, from May 26, 1828, to 1839, and William Marvin, from March 11, 1839, to March 3, 1847.

²⁴ Organized by Act Sept. 24, 1789, (1 Stat. 73.) Divided into northern and southern districts by Act Aug. 11, 1848, (9 Stat. 289.)

²⁵ The jurisdiction of the district judge for the districts of Georgia was confined to the southern district, and the appointment of a district judge for the northern district authorized, by Act April 25, 1882, (22 Stat. 47, c. 87.)

⁵⁰ See note 50, on page xxiii.

⁵⁶ See note 56, on page xxiv.

²⁶ Organized by Act July 3, 1890, (26 Stat. 217.)

²⁷ Organized by Act March 3, 1819, (3 Stat. 502.) Abolished by Act Feb. 13, 1855, (10 Stat. 606.)

²⁸ Organized by Act Feb. 13, 1855, (10 Stat. 606.)

²⁹ Organized by Act March 3, 1817, (3 Stat. 390, c. 100.)

³⁰ Organized by Act March 3, 1845. (5 Stat. 789.) Abolished by Act July 20, 1882. (22 Stat. 172.)

³¹ Organized by Act July 20, 1882, (22 Stat. 172.)

³² Organized by Act Jan. 29, 1861, (12 Stat. 128.)

³³ Organized by Act Sept. 24, 1789, (1 Stat. 73.) The district court was abolished by Act Feb. 13, 1801, (2 Stat. 97, § 24,) and reorganized by Act March 8, 1802, (2 Stat. 132, c. 8.)

³⁴ Organized by Act April 8, 1812, (2 Stat. 703, § 3,) comprising the district of Orleans, which had been organized by Act March 26. 1804, (2 Stat. 285. § 8.) District of Louisiana abolished by Act March 3, 1849, (9 Stat. 401.) Reorganized by Act July 27, 1866, (14 Stat. 300.) Again abolished by Act March 3, 1881, (21 Stat. 507.)

³⁵ Appointed provisional judge for the state of Louisiana by proclamation. See U. S. v. Reiter, Case No. 16,146; The Grapeshot, 9 Wall. (76 U. S.) 129. The records of the provisional court were transferred to the district court by Act July 28, 1866, (14 Stat. 344, c. 310.)

³⁶ Organized by Act March 3, 1849, (9 Stat. 401.) Abolished by Act July 27, 1866, (14 Stat. 300.) Reorganized by Act March 3, 1881, (21 Stat. 507.)

³⁷ Organized by Act Sept. 24, 1789, (1 Stat. 73.)

³⁸ The district of Potomac, including a portion of the states of Maryland and Virginia, was organized by Act Feb. 13, 1801, § 21, (2 Stat. 96,) and the district court, by that act, was to be held by the district judge for the district of Maryland. After the District of Columbia was erected, it was provided by Act March 3, 1801, § 7, (2 Stat. 124,) that the chief judge of the circuit court for the District of Columbia should hold the district court for the district of Potomac. The district of Potomac was abolished by Act March 8, 1802, (2 Stat. 132, c. 8,) taking effect July 1, 1802.

³⁹ Organized by Act Sept. 24, 1789, (1 Stat. 73.)

⁴⁰ Organized by Act July 1, 1836. (5 Stat. 61. c. 234.) Abolished by Act July 24, 1863, (12 Stat. 660.)

⁴¹ Organized by Act July 24, 1863, (12 Stat. 660.)

⁴² Organized by Act May 11, 1858, (11 Stat. 285.)

⁴³ Organized by Act April 3, 1818, (3 Stat. 413.) Divided into northern and southern districts by Act June 18, 1838, (5 Stat. 247.)

⁴⁴ Organized by Act March 16, 1822, (3 Stat. 653.) Abolished by Act March 3, 1857, (11 Stat. 197.)

⁴⁵ Organized by Act March 3, 1857, (11 Stat. 197.)

⁴⁶ Organized by Act Feb. 22, 1889, (25 Stat. 682.)

⁴⁷ Organized by Act April 19, 1864, (13 Stat. 50.)

⁴⁸ Organized by Act Feb. 27, 1865, (13 Stat. 410.)

⁴⁹ Organized by Act Sept. 24, 1789, (1 Stat. 73.)

⁵⁰ Organized by Act Sept. 24, 1789, (1 Stat. 73.) Divided into districts of East and West Jersey by Act Feb. 13, 1801, (2 Stat. 96;) the district court to be held by the district judge for the district of Jersey. District of New Jersey reorganized by Act March 8, 1802, (2 Stat. 132, c. 8.)

⁵¹ Organized by Act Sept. 24, 1789, (1 Stat. 73.) Abolished by Act April 9, 1814, (3 Stat. 120, c. 49).

⁵⁶ See note 56, on page xxiv.

⁵² Additional district judge authorized by Act April 29, 1812, (2 Stat. 719, c. 71.)

⁵³ Organized by Act April 9, 1814, (3 Stat. 120, c. 49.)

⁵⁴ Organized by Act Feb. 25, 1865, (13 Stat. 438, c. 54.)

⁵⁵ Organized by Act June 4, 1790, (1 Stat. 126.) Divided into three districts by Act June 9. 1794, § 3, (1 Stat. 396.) Reorganized by Act March 3, 1797, § 2, (1 Stat. 518.) Again divided into three districts by Act Feb. 13, 1801, (2 Stat. 96.)

⁵⁶ The districts of Wilmington, Newbern, and Edonton were organized by Act June 9, 1794, § 3, (1 Stat. 396.) Abolished by Act March 3, 1797, § 2, (1 Stat. 518.) The districts of Albemarle, Pamptico, and Cape Fear were organized by Act Feb. 13, 1801, (2 Stat. 96.) Abolished by Act June 4, 1872, (17 Stat. 215.) See, also, Act March 8, 1802, (2 Stat. 132,) and Act April 29, 1802, § 7, (2 Stat. 162.)

⁵⁷ Organized by Act June 4, 1872, (17 Stat. 215.)

⁵⁸ Organized by Act Feb. 22, 1889, (25 Stat. 682.)

⁷⁵ See note 75, on page xxvii.

³⁴ See note 34, on page xxi.

⁵⁶ See note 56. on page xxiv.

⁵⁹ Organized by Act Feb. 19, 1803, (2 Stat. 201.) Abolished by Act Feb. 11, 1855, (10 Stat. 604.)

⁶⁰ Organized by Act Feb. 11, 1855, (10 Stat. 604.)

⁶¹ Organized by Act March 3, 1859, (11 Stat. 437.)

⁶² Organized by Act Sept. 24, 1789, (1 Stat. 73.) Abolished by Act April 20, 1818, (3 Stat. 462.)

⁶³ Organized by Act April 20, 1818, (3 Stat. 462.)

⁶⁴ See note 56, on page xxiv.

⁶⁴ Organized by Act June 23, 1790, (1 Stat. 128.)

⁶⁵ Organized by Act Sept. 24, 1789, (1 Stat. 73.) Divided into eastern and western districts by Act Feb. 21, 1823, (3 Stat. 726, c. 9.) For other acts relating to the districts of South Carolina, see 11 Stat. 43 25 Stat. 655, c. 113 26 Stat. 71, c. 165; 27 Stat. 261, c. 235.

⁶⁶ Organized by Act Feb. 22, 1889, (25 Stat. 682.)

⁶⁷ Organized by Act Jan. 31, 1797, (1 Stat. 496.) The district court was abolished by Act Feb. 13, 1801, (2 Stat. 97, § 24,) and reorganized by Act March 8, 1802, (2 Stat. 132, c. 8.) The district was abolished by Act April 29, 1802, (2 Stat. 165, §§ 16, 17.)

⁶⁸ Organized by Act April 29, 1802, (2 Stat. 165, §§ 16, 17.) Middle district organized by Act Jan. 18, 1839, (5 Stat. 313.)

⁶⁹ Appointment of judge for the western district authorized by Act June 14, 1878, (20 Stat. 132.)

³⁸ See note 38, on page xxi.

⁷⁰ Organized by Act Dec. 29, 1845, (9 Stat. 1.) Abolished by Act Feb. 21, 1857, (11 Stat. 164.)

⁷¹ Organized by Act Feb. 21, 1857, (11 Stat. 164.)

⁷² Northern district organized by Act Feb. 24, 1879, (20 Stat. 318.)

⁷³ Organized by Act March 2, 1791, (1 Stat. 297.)

⁷⁴ Organized by Act Sept. 24. 1789, (1 Stat. 73.) Abolished by Act Feb. 4, 1819, (3 Stat. 478, c. 12.) Reorganized by Act June 11, 1864, (13 Stat. 124.) Again abolished by Act Feb. 3, 1871, (16 Stat. 403.)

⁷⁵ The district of Norfolk was organized by Act Feb. 13, 1801, (2 Stat. 96, § 21,) and abolished by Act March 8, 1802. (2 Stat. 132, c. 8.) The court was held by the district judge of the district of Virginia.

⁷⁶ Organized by Act Feb, 4. 1819. (3 Stat. 478. c. 12.) Abolished by Act June 11, 1864. (13 Stat. 124.) Reorganized by Act Feb. 3, 1871, (16 Stat. 403.)

⁷⁷ Western district of Virginia organized by Act Feb. 4, 1819, (3 Stat. 478, c. 12.) Changed to the district of West Virginia by Act June 11, 1864, (13 Stat. 124.)

⁵⁰ See note 50, on page xxiii.

⁵⁶ See note 56, on page xxiv.

⁷⁷ See note 77, on page xxvii.

⁷⁸ Organized by Act Feb. 3, 1871, (16 Stat. 403.)

⁷⁹ Organized by Act Feb. 22, 1889, (25 Stat. 682.)

⁸⁰ Organized by Act Aug. 6, 1846, (9 Stat. 57.) Abolished by Act June 30, 1870, (16 Stat. 171.)

⁸¹ Organized by Act June 30, 1870. (16 Stat. 171.)

⁸² Organized by Act July 10, 1890, (26 Stat. 225.)

FEDERAL JUDGES.

ALPHABETICALLY ARRANGED.

1FED.OAS.

1FED. CAS.—

CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURT REPORTS
BY
CIRCUITS AND DISTRICTS.

1 FED.CAS

REPORTS, PERIODICALS, DIGESTS, TEXT BOOKS, ETC.

EXAMINED FOR REPORTS AND CITATIONS OF FEDERAL CASES.

1FED.CAS.

¹ Reports for the districts of Virginia and North Carolina; in the fifth circuit during this period.

² Reports for the districts of Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. During part of this period Virginia and North Carolina were in the fifth circuit, and South Carolina in the sixth.

³ These are reports for the old seventh circuit, as constituted by Act April 29, 1802, (2 Stat. 156,) and Act March 3, 1837, (5 Stat. 176.)

⁴ Entitled reports for the seventh circuit, but covering some districts which are now (1893) in the sixth circuit.

⁵ Reports for the southern district of Ohio; in the seventh circuit during part of this period.

⁶ Reports for the districts of Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, and Michigan. During a part of this period Kentucky and Tennessee were in the eighth circuit, and Ohio and Michigan in the seventh.

⁷ Reports of cases in the old seventh circuit, as constituted by Act April 29, 1802, (2 Stat. 156,) and Act March 3, 1837, (5 Stat. 176.)

⁸ Entitled reports for the seventh circuit, but including some districts now (1893) in the sixth circuit.

⁹ Reports for the district of Arkansas; at this period in the ninth circuit.

¹⁰ Reports for the northern and southern districts of California. At this period these districts constituted the California circuit, under Act March 2, 1855, (10 Stat. 631.)

¹¹ Reports for the districts of California and Oregon; in the tenth circuit during part of this period, under Act March 3, 1863, (12 Stat. 794.) The districts of California made a separate circuit during part of this period, under Act March 2, 1855, (10 Stat. 631.)

¹² Volume six contains only an index.

¹³ One case.

¹⁴ At this time there was only one district of New York.

¹⁵ Sometimes bound in one volume.

¹⁶ At this time there was only one district of Pennsylvania. These volumes contain cases in the admiralty court of Pennsylvania before 1789.

¹⁷ At this time there was only one district of Pennsylvania.

¹⁸ One case.

¹⁹ Sometimes bound in one volume.

²⁰ Western district of Louisiana.

²¹ Districts of Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri.

²² Districts of Michigan and Ohio.

²³ Northern district of California.

²⁴ Districts of Oregon and California.

This volume of American Law was transcribed for use on the Internet
through a contribution from Google.