Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 07.pdf/44

 The Case of the Sloop "Active!'

23

in Olmsted's fortunes by this positive declar Supreme Court of the United States held that the District Courts of the United States ation in the fundamental law. In 1790 Judge Ross died, and suit was had power and authority to carry into exe brought against his executors in the Court cution the decrees of the defunct Court of of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Appeals in cases of capture.' The heart of Pennsylvania, by Olmsted, who still toiled the doughty old mariner was warmed by fresh hopes. Presenting himself before wearily in search of justice. A judgment was recovered by default. Judge Richard Peters, the United States Thereupon Ross's District Judge for Pennsylvania, i n executors sued Rittenhouse to the 1803, he obtained a decree against use of Olmsted up on the bond of inMrs. Sergeant and demnity. This Mrs. Waters, the aspect of the con daughters and extroversy came be ecutrices of David fore the Supreme Rittenhouse, by Court of Pennsyl which they were vania in 1792, and directed to hand Chief-Justice over the certifi Thomas McKean, cates of Federal whose name with debt in which their that of Ross is at father had invested tached to the Dec the money received laration of Inde by him as treasurer pendence, declined of the State. To to sustain the suit, meet this decree, on the ground of the Legislature of the lack of juris Pennsylvania, a t diction of the Com the instigation of mon Pleas over an Thomas McKean, admiralty matter. the Governor, He held that this smarting under the objection ran inattention paid to equally against the his decision as Chief Justice of the validity of the rittenhouse. State Supreme judgment against the executors of Ross, and at the same time Court, passed an act requiring the ladies to pay over- the funds in dispute to the expressed in an extra-judicial fashion a de State Treasury, and directed the Governor cided opinion against the powers of Con gress. In the conclusion Associate Justices to protect their persons and property Shippen and Yeates concurred, although against any process issuing out of any Fed eral Court.2 Here was a gage of battle dissenting from his reasons.' Baffled but undismayed, Olmsted quietly flung down by the State, accompanied by a awaited the course of events. Three years note of defiance. The nominal parties to later, in the case of Penhallow v. Doane, the 1 3 Dallas. 54. 1 Russell e! a/., Exrs. v. Rittenhouse, 2 Dallas, 160.


 * Act 2d of April, 1803.