GENERAL RULE.

FEBRUARY TERM, 1806.

The following Rule was directed to be entered on the minutes of the Court.

ALL causes, the records in which shall be delivered to the clerk, on or before the sixth day of a term, shall be considered as for trial in the course of that term. Where the record shall be delivered after the sixth day of the term, either party will be entitled to a continuance.

In all cases, where a writ of error shall be a supersedeas to a judgment, rendered in any circuit court of the United States, (except that for the district of Columbia) at least thirty days previous to the commencement of any term of this court, it shall be the duty of the plaintiff in error, to lodge a copy of the record with the clerk of this court, within the first six days of the term, and if he shall fail so to do, the defendant in error shall be permitted, afterwards, to lodge a copy of the record with the clerk, and the cause shall stand for trial in like manner, as if the record had come up within the first six days; or he may, on producing a certificate from the clerk, stating the cause, and that a writ of error has been sued out, which operates as a supersedeas to the judgment, have the said writ of error docketed and dismissed. This rule shall apply to all judgments rendered by the court for the district of Columbia, at any time prior to a session of this court.

In cases not put to issue at the August term, it shall be the duty of the plaintiff in error, if errors shall not have been assigned in the court below, to assign them in this court, at the commencement of the term, or so

soon thereafter as the record shall be filed with the clerk, and the cause placed on the docket; and if he shall fail to do so, and shall also fail to assign them when the cause shall be called for trial, the writ of error may be dismissed at his costs; and if the defendant shall refuse to plead to issue, and the cause shall be called for trial, the court may proceed to hear an argument on the part of the plaintiff, and to give judgment according to the right of the cause,

FEBRUARY TERM, 1806.

DOBYNES & MORTON v. UNITED STATES. DOBYNES &

THIS writ of error came up at last term from the district court of the United States for the Kentucky district, which, by law, has the jurisdiction of a circuit court of the United States.

The suit was originally brought by the United States against Lewis Moore, as principal, and Dobynes and Morton, as sureties, in a bond given by Moore, as a collector of the revenue.

The writ of capias ad respondendum was issued on the 12th of February, 1803, returnable to the 2d Monday of March following; and judgment was recovered by default, at the return term, on motion,

The error insisted upon was, that it did not appear, by the record, that the writ had been "executed fourteen days before the return day thereof," according to the 14th section of the act of congress, of July 11, 1798, vol. 4, p. 197.

'The record contained a copy of the bail-bond given by Morton, dated the 11th of March, 1803; and a receipt from the jailor, for the body of Dobynes, dated the 12th of March, 1803,

The 2d Monday of March could not have been later than the 14th of the month.

MORTON

DOBYNES &

MORTON

Mason, for the United States, suggested diminution in this, that the writ was served on Dobynes and MorTHE UNITED ton, on the 20th of February, as appeared by the record STATES. of the district court; and obtained a certiorari.

V.

But now, at this term, the return of the certiorari not showing any thing more than what appeared on the first transcript,

Breckenridge, attorney-general, admitted that the judgment could not be supported, as there was nothing in the record by which the return of the marshal could be amended, so as to show, that the writ had been executed fourteen days before the return day.

The courts

States will not

THIS was a writ of error to the circuit court of the of the United United States, for the district of Georgia, sitting in chancery, to reverse a decree which dismissed the complainant's bill on a demurrer.

enforce an agreement entered into in fraud of a law of the United' States; although that agreement

was made between persons who

The complainant, as assignee of Cruden and Company, alleged, in his bill, that on the 24th of December, 1782, during the war between, the United States and Great-Britain, the British armed ship Dawes, owned by Cruden and Company, who were British subjects, and commanded by Oswell Eve, the defendant, sailed were then e with a cargo, the property of Cruden and Company, from United States, Kingston, in Jamaica, for New-York, then in possesand the object sion of the British troops. That on her passage the of the agree ship met with much tempestuous weather, by which ment a mere she was rendered incapable of reaching her port of desstratagem of tination; in consequence of which, the defendant, after

nemies of the

war.