Translations from the Civil Law; on the responsibility of mariners, inkeep. ers and stable keepers.-American State Papers. Review of Sugden's Law of Vendors, &c. Selwyn's Nisi Prius, Prestons Conveyancing, Lawes on Pleading and Rowe's Observations on the Rules of Descent. Literary Intelligence.

VOL. 2. No. V. American State Papers. Report of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania of the English statutes, which are in force in that State, and of those which might be introduced.-District Court, United States, Virginia. Construction of an act of Congress.-Pennsylvania. Habeas Corpus, Dumas's case.-Court of Common Pleas. Turnpike Company, Trespass.-Georgia Superior Court. Construction of an act of the Legislature. Habeas Corpus.-Massachusetts Common Pleas. Gilbert and Dean vs. the Nantucket Bank.-Decision by the Court of Cassation in France.English Court of Chancery. Church Endowments.-Court of King's Bench. False Return. North vs. Niles et al. Baron Smith's Charge in a Duel case-Vice Admiralty Court of Antigua, Case of the schooner Derne.-Halifax. Rights and Powers of Captors and Prize Agents.-Principles in the Law of Nations.-Character of an Honest Lawyer. Review of Day's Reports.

No. VI. Baltimore County Court. Replevin, Haskins vs. Latour.-Insolvent: Stewart's case-Insurance: Carrere vs. The Union Insurance Company. Circuit Court United States, Pennsylvania District. Insurance. Embargo. Odlin vs. The Insurance Company of Pennsylvania.-Dauphin Common Pleas. Turnpike Stock.-South Carolina. Damages on protested Bills of Exchange-District Court of Pennsylvania. Contributions from Seaman's wages for negligence in discharging a vessel -Insolvent laws of Pennsylvania. -Civil law, on the responsibility of Mariners, Inn and Stable keepers.

No. VII. District Court of Massachusetts. Constitutionality of the Embargo laws. U. S. vs. brig William-Mariners wages. Natterstrom vs. the ship Hazard.-The Batture case of New Orleans, with the opinions of M. Derbigney, Messrs. Du Ponceau, Rawle Tilghman, Lewis and Ingersoll.

No. VIII. Translations from the Consolato del mare.-The Batture case, continued.-New-York District Court. Decisions under the embargo acts.--Manner of proving deeds in New-York.----Civil law. Responsibility of ship owners for the acts of the master.---Review of the French civil code.---Biography of Lord Chancellor Eldon, (Sir John Scott.)

VOL. 3. No. IX. Translations from the Consulato del Mare---from the civil law, the Rhodian law concerning Jettison.----Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. Judge Roans decision on the law of anti and post nati in that state, Lessee of Reed vs. Reed.--The Attachment law of Maryland.----Bills of Exchange in New-Orleans.---Judicial Establishment in New-Orleans.----The

manner of authenticating foreign deeds, records, &c. in order to entitle them to be admitted in evidence in Virginia. An act for regulating conveyances in that state. Of the Registry of lands in Virginia.---Review of the French civil code, continued.---Review of Hillhouse's Amendment of the Constitution of the United States-Characters of Lord Ch. J. Hales, Lord Ch. J. Scroggs, Sergeant Maynard, Thomas Syderfin and M. de Lolme.

No. X. Pennsylvania Common Pleas. Jurisdiction of Justices.----North Carolina, Superior Court. Freight. Responsibility of owners. Flury vs. Nalts-New-York District Court. Marshal. Jurors. Construction of an act of Congress.---Maryland District Court. Indictment for stopping the Mail, Barney's case.---Case of the deserters from the British frigate, l' Africane, Judge Scott's decision.---British court of sessions. Seamen's wages.---Middlesex Common Pleas. Sinclair vs. Louis Stanislaus Xavier, king of France and his brother Monsieur.---V rginia Leg slature. Report of a committee on a proposed amendment of the constitution of the United States.--. Pennsylvania, Mr. Hopkins's opinion on the operation of an act of the Legislature concerning Banking Institutions.----Translations from the civil law respecting Bottomry and Hypothecation-and from the French ordinance on the same subject. Pennsylvan'a. An act for taxing dogs. An act concerning arbitrations. District Court of Pennsylvania. Duties. Forfeiture. Construction of an act of Congress. U. S. vs. Cave.---C`rcuit Court U. S. Penns. D st. Patent Right. Oliver Evans, vs. Weiss.---New-York. Libel on Gen. Hamilton.---Judge Winchester's opinion on the operation of an act of Congress.---Opinion by A. Macdonald on a question of alienage.---Court of King's Bench. Charge in a duel case.---Review of Olmstead's case in Pennsylvania.--Characters of Lord Ch. J. Jeffries, Sir Edmund Saunders, Sir Leoline Jenkins, and Sidney Godolphin.

XI. and XII. Contain a treatise on the law of war, translated from the Latin of Bynkershoeck, by Peter Stephen Du Ponceau, Esq. Counsellor at Law in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Ne fortior omnia possit.-Ovid.

THE

AMERICAN LAW JOURNAL.

TENNESSEE.

Mero District, Superior Court of Law, May 1808.

Vincent's Lessee, versus Conrad and Others.

EJECTMENT. Plea, Not Guilty. Whether an entry or location of Land, or any evidence, other than patents or deeds, can be given in evidence in this action, in relation to title not founded in prescription.

[Agreeably to the universally received interpretation of the land law of the State of Tennessee, as evidenced by usage, a location or entry, which is of record, is not required to be specific as to boundary. It is usually descriptive as to some point of beginning, to adjoin the line of some other claim, or to include some known object. Boundaries are not ascertained until an actual survey. And in making this, the Surveyor is directed to run in a square or oblong to the cardinal points, such oblong not exceeding in length twice its breadth: unless in either case, the lines of older claims intervene, when the purveyor shall in such case, bound his survey on the lines of such older claims.]

THE plaintiff read a Grant for a pre-emption in evidence, upon which the Defendant's counsel read an older Grant than the Plaintiff's, for part of the Land covered by it, as exhibited in the Plat of the Surveyor.

Whiteside for Plaintiff, then offered to read a pre-emption entry in support of his Grant, of an earlier date than the Defendant's Grant, in order to over-reach the same.

Grundy for the Defendant, objected to the reading of this entry, upon the principle, that the Plaintiff can only avail himself of it, in a Court of Equity supposing it to be special; he had understood that a practice had prevailed in this State for some years past, by which either party litigant was authorised to give in evidence, not only the Entry, but other equitable circumstances. Surely such a practice is not founded in legal principle, and if it were conceived to be the case, he hoped to have the indulgence of the Court in the arguments he meant to use in support of the objection taken.

He took it to be a clear point, that after the issuing of a Grant, the Entry made no part of the legal Title. It is true, that during the time that Lord Mansfield presided in the Court of King's Bench, there was a strange disposition to enlarge the powers of the Ordinary Courts, beyond their former limits;* among other instances it was perceivable on the ground now under consideration-It was then decided that the equitable interest of the Cestuy que trust might be given in evidence in a Court of Law. This doctrine however, seems to have been considered by every Lawyer since Lord Mansfield, as one among the few aberrations from legal principle, in the decisions of that great man. Lord Kenyon, his successor, exainined the doctrine elaborately, and pronounced it to be unsound, 2 T. Rep. 697, in the year 1788. This case decides that nothing but the legal title can be given in evidence in a Court of Law. Loughborough and Ellenborough, the immediate successors of Kenyon, by a series of decisions to be found in 7 T. Rep. 3. 49. 8 T. Rep. 2. 121. 1 H. Black 461, and 5 East's Rep. 138-9, and many other cases, establish beyond all kind of controversy, that nothing but the legal title can be received in evidence in Ejectment. Runnington in his Treatise on Ejectment, lays down the Law in the same manner in page 12. 3 Dall. 464 Paterson, Judge.

This is clearly the Law of England -Have our Statutes made any alteration? None that can be discovered: it was so consider

* See Letters of Junius, No. 41. 91. Sch. and L. f. Rep. 66-7.

ed in North Carolina, where the point occurred under precisely the same Statutes. 1 Hey. Rep. 176-7-8, shows, that the Courts of Law in North Carolina, will not permit any thing to be given in evidence but the Grant. An act which passed the Legislature of that State, in the year 1798, erecting a Court with power to repeal Patents by the Sci. Fa. for fraud practised upon the State, is not in form; but it evinces that, that State considered their ordinary Courts (if not those of Equity) incompetent to the repeal of a Grant. In Virginia, it is the practice not to permit a Grant to be opposed in a Court of Law, by an Entry, or any other equitable matter. The same Law in Kentucky, Sneed's Rep. 237-8.

A Court of Law, if they were disposed, cannot, agreeably to their forms of proceeding, afford relief; after a decision here, the losing Grant still has existence, life, and validity.

This Court cannot devest the right communicated by it, nor make it a nullity. The case now before the Court exemplifies this. A few years ago, Conrad, the Defendant, brought Ejectment against the Plaintiff, Vincent, and recovered-one of Conrad's witnesses since that determination died; the then Defendant Vincent, turned about, and brought an Ejectment against Conrad; in both cases the same titles were in contest; one recovery in Ejectment, is not a bar to another, Runn. Eject. 25.

If we succeed now, we may be obliged to renew the contest, again and again; various success may attend those rencontres, as witnesses on either side, drop into the grave.

It is material, that this question should be well weighed by the Court, and if the present practice is wrong, it ought to be changed. The decisions of the Federal Court certainly will not accord with the present practice, and it is of the first importance that the rules of decision respecting property, should be the same in both Courts. If this Court see that the practice, as it now stands, is not founded in Law, it is their duty to change it. In the case of the King vs. Whiting, Holt, C. J decided an important point of evidence, which was followed for twelve or fifteen years, and then over-ruled, Loft's Gilb. 234-5-6-7. Malus usus abolendus est.

The meaning, or construction of all writings, is matter of Law, for the Court, and not of fact for the Jury. In almost every case