Page images
PDF
EPUB

TREATIES.

ment of the United States, whether exercised with a foreign nation or an Indian tribe, that all questions of boundary may be settled by the parties to the treaty: and to the exercise of that high function of the government within its constitutional powers, neither the rights of a state or an individual can be interposed. Ibid. 4. Florida land claims.

5. Construction of statutes of the United States, 4-8.

TREATY OF INDEMNITY WITH FRANCE.

The powers and duties of the commissioners under the treaty of indemnity with France, were the same as those which were exercised under the treaty with Spain, by which Florida was ceded to the United States; as decided in the cases of Comegys vs. Vasse, 1 Peters, 212, and Sheppard vs. Taylor and others, 5 Peters, 710. There is a difference in the words used in the Treaty and Act of Congress, when defining the powers of the Board of Commissioners; but they mean the same thing. The rules by which the Board, acting under the French treaty, is directed to govern itself in deciding the cases that come before it, and the manner in which it is constituted and organized, show the purposes for which it was created. It was established for the purpose of deciding what claims were entitled to share in the indemnity provided by the treaty; and they of course awarded the amount to such person as appeared from the papers before them to be the rightful claimant. But there is nothing in the frame of the law establishing the Board, or in the manner of constituting and organizing it, which would lead to the inference that larger powers were intended to be given than those conferred on the commissioners under the Florida Treaty. Freval vs. Bache, 95.

TRUSTS.

1. In case of a deed of trust executed to secure a debt, unless in case of some extrinsic matter of equity, a Court of Equity never interferes to delay or prevent a sale according to the terms of the trust; and the only right of the grantor in the deed, is the right to any surplus which may remain of the money for which the property sold. The Bank of the Metropolis vs. Guttschlick, 19.

2. When a trust is created for the benefit of a third party, though without his knowledge at the time, he may affirm the trust, and enforce its execution. Ibid.

3. Where a deed of trust was executed to secure the payment of certain notes, and a judgment obtained on the notes, the judgment did not operate as an extinguishment of the right of the holders of the note to call for the execution of the trust; although the act of limitations might apply to the judgment. Ibid.

4. The same relation as that of landlord and tenant subsists between a trust, and a cestui qui trust, as it regards title to the estate. Walden et al. vs. Bodley et al. 156.

WRIT OF ERROR.

1. It is the settled doctrine of the Supreme Court of the United States that a writ of error does not lie from the Circuit Court on the refusal of a motion to quash an execution by such refusal not being a final judgment, under the twenty-second section of the Judiciary Act of 1789. Evans vs. Gee, 1.

2. Under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, three things are necessary to give the Supreme Court jurisdiction of a case brought up by writ of error or appeal. 1. The validity of a statute of the United States, or of an authority exercised under a state must be drawn in question. 2. It must be drawn in question on the ground that it is repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States. 3. The decision of the state Court must be in favour of its validity. The Commonwealth Bank of Kentucky vs. Griffith and others, 56.

3. When the decision of a state Court is against the validity of a state statute, as contrary to the Constitution of the United States, a writ of error does not lie to the Supreme Court upon such a judgment. Ibid.

[merged small][ocr errors]
[graphic]
« PreviousContinue »