Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 2.djvu/196



whether a writ of habere facias possessionem should be issued; the defendant, in the circuit court of Maryland, having obtained, in a state court, an order for the injunction of the proceedings in the circuit court. The supreme court directed that the writ be issued. M‘Kim v. Voorhies, 7 Cranch, 279; 2 Cond. Rep. 492.The defendant was indicted in the circuit court of Vermont, under embargo laws, for loading carriages with pearl ashes, with intent to export them. The jury found him guilty; and that the ashes were worth two hundred and eighty dollars. The defendant moved in arrest of judgment, for defect in the finding; and on the question presented by the motion, the judges were divided in opinion; which division was certified to the supreme court. United States v. John Tyler, 7 Cranch, 285; 2 Cond. Rep. 492.The question certified to the supreme court, from the circuit court of West Tennessee, was on the construction of the act of the legislature of Tennessee, relative to possession of lands. Patton’s Lessee v. Easton, 1 Wheat. 476; 3 Cond. Rep. 631.The supreme court of the United States has no jurisdiction of causes brought before it, on a certificate of division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court, for the District of Columbia. The appellate jurisdiction extends, only, to the final judgment and decrees of that court. Ross v. Triplett, 3 Wheat. 600; 4 Cond. Rep. 351.The question referred to the supreme court, by a certificate of division between the judges of the circuit court, on facts stated by the court, was, whether the circuit court of Kentucky could take jurisdiction of a case, when one of the grants for the land in controversy was issued out by the state of Virginia, the other by the state of Kentucky, both grants being founded upon warrants and locations made under the laws of Virginia. Colson v. Lewis, 2 Wheat. 377; 4 Cond. Rep. 168.The facts of the case being found by a special verdict, and the judges being divided in opinion on questions arising on the verdict, the questions were certified to the supreme court. Somerville’s Ex’rs v. Hamilton, 4 Wheat. 230; 4 Cond. Rep. 436. The difference of opinion of the judges of the circuit court of Delaware, was, whether certain depositions taken under a commission issued from the circuit court of Delaware, could be read in evidence. This difference was certified to the supreme court, and the question decided. Sergeant’s Lessee v. Biddle et al., 4 Wheat. 508; 4 Cond. Rep. 522.On an indictment for manslaughter, the defendant was found guilty, subject to the opinion of the court, whether the circuit court of Pennsylvania had jurisdiction in a case where the offence was committed on board an American ship, lying in the river Tigris, off Wampoa, in the empire of China. On the question of jurisdiction, the judges were divided in opinion, and the division was certified to the supreme court; and was decided in favour of the defendant. United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76; 4 Cond. Rep. 593.The jury found a special verdict, in the circuit court of Virginia, on a trial of an indictment for piracy; and on a motion to arrest the judgment, the question whether the acts charged against the defendant, and found by the jury, was a piracy by the law of nations, so as to be punishable under the, was presented; and the judges of the circuit court were divided in opinion; and thereupon, the question was certified to the supreme court. United States v. Smith, 5 Wheat. 153; 4 Cond. Rep. 619.The prisoners were found guilty in the circuit court of Massachusetts, for murder on the high seas, out of the jurisdiction of a particular state. The counsel of the prisoners moved the court for a new trial for the misdirection of the court on points of law which arose during the trial. The judges of the court being opposed in opinion upon questions presented with the motion; the indictment, and a statement of the evidence, were certified to the supreme court. United States v. Holmes et al., 5 Wheat. 412; 4 Cond. Rep. 708.The defendant was indicted in the circuit court of South Carolina, charging him with wickedly and maliciously concealing a murder committed on the high seas, of which he had knowledge. The judge charged the jury, that the concealment, under the circumstances, was sufficient to convict the defendant, and the jury found him guilty. On a motion to arrest the judgment, and for a new trial, the judges were opposed in opinion on the motion, which was certified to the supreme court. The supreme court said, a motion for a new trial is not part of the proceedings of the case. The question must be one which arises in a cause depending before the court, relative to a proceeding belonging to the cause. A motion for a new trial has never before been brought to this court on a division of opinion in the circuit court. United States v. Daniel, 6 Wheat. 542; 5 Cond. Rep. 170.On a trial of a writ of right in the circuit court of Kentucky, the judges of the court differed in opinion on questions as to the constitutionality of certain laws of Kentucky, giving to occupying claimants of land, the value of their improvements. The questions were certified to the supreme court. Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1; 5 Cond. Rep. 389.The question certified from the circuit court of Maryland, in this case, was on a motion to instruct the jury, that, on the whole evidence, the plaintiffs cannot sustain their demand. All the evidence given on the trial of the cause was before the supreme court. The supreme court certified their opinion to the circuit court. Willinks v. Hollingsworth, 6 Wheat. 240; 5 Cond. Rep. 79.This was a case certified from the circuit court of New Jersey. The question on which the court was divided was, whether on the special pleadings and demurrer, an alteration in the bond of a collector of taxes, made without the knowledge of his surety, by which the collector was appointed for nine instead of eight townships, discharged the surety from liability for taxes collected after the alteration was made. Miller v. Stewart, 9 Wheat. 680; 5 Cond. Rep. 727.This cause was certified from the circuit court of the district of Kentucky, upon a division of opinion between the judges of that court, on several questions which occurred, on a motion made by the plaintiff, to quash the marshal’s return on an execution issued on a judgment obtained in that court on a replevin bond; and also to quash the replevin bond taken on the execution, for the causes assigned in the motion. The court divided in opinion on the points stated in the motion, and the same were certified to the supreme court. Wayman et al. v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1; 6 Cond. Rep. 1. of the supreme court, and their order in the premises, shall be remitted to the circuit court, and be there entered of record, and shall have effect according to the nature of the said judgment and order: Provided, that nothing herein contained shall prevent the cause from proceeding, if, in