Ex parte Madrazzo on behalf of the libellant; the proceedings in that case were invoked and referred to. The *slaves, the cargo of the Isabelita, were sold under the illegal decree pronounced at Fernandina, and by one William [*629 Bowen, the purchaser, were conveyed to the Creek nation, where, at a place called "the United States Agency," within the limits of the said nation, they were, to the number of ninety-five, seized and taken possession of by an officer of the United States, and brought within the limits and district of Georgia. These ninety-five slaves were subsequently delivered over to the government of the state of Georgia, on pretence that they had been illegally imported or introduced into the United States, contrary to an act of congress, and in compliance with an act of the assembly of the state of Georgia to carry the same into effect. A part of the slaves were sold by the government of Georgia, or its officers or agents, without any form of trial or judgment, as directed by the said act of assembly; and the proceeds thereof, to the amount of $40,000, paid into the treasury of the state of Georgia. The residue of the slaves, twenty-seven or thirty in number, remained in the possession of the state or its officers, or had been converted to or disposed of by the state, for its own use; or wrongfully delivered to some persons not entitled to the same, and contrary to the will of the libellant. The slaves, or the proceeds of those sold, could not rightfully become the property of the state of Georgia, by virtue of the piratical capture, seizure or cendemnation, or by the unlawful acts of the pretended purchaser of the same; but the same remained the property of the libellant. The libel further stated, that the governor of the state of Georgia, on the 20th of May 1820, on the pretence that the said negroes had been illegally transported to the Creek nation, and unlawfully imported into the United States from some foreign place, with intent to hold them to service and labor, filed a libel in the district court of the United States for the district of Georgia, alleging the unlawful importation, and that a demand of them had been made by the society for the colonization of free people of color in Africa; which the governor alleged he was desirous of complying with, if authorized to do so by a decree of the court. No specification was made of the number of the slaves, and no mention was made of the illegal seizure and *sale of the slaves, in the information, or of the payment of the $40,000 into the treasury of the state of Georgia. [*630 The libel further stated, that William Bowen, who had purchased the slaves, the cargo of the Isabelita, put in a claim for the whole of the said. slaves, on the 7th November 1820; alleging that they were his property, and were not intended to be introduced into the United States, but had been carried into the Creek nation for safety, with the intention to remove them to West Florida, a colony of Spain; the truth of which allegation the libellant admitted. The libellant, hearing of the proceedings in the district court of Georgia, filed a libel claiming the slaves; and the district court dismissed the claim of William Bowen and of the libellant, and decreed in favor of the governor of Georgia. That decree, on appeal to the circuit court of the United States was reversed; the claims of the state of Georgia and of William Bowen were dismissed; and that court decreed that the said slaves should be restored to the libellant, Juan Madrazzo, together with the proceeds of them, sold and paid into the treasury of the state of Georgia. Ex parte Madrazzo. From this decree, the governor of Georgia, on behalf of the state, appealed to this court. From the district court of the United States of Georgia, a warrant of arrest, upon the libel of this libellant was issued; but the execution being prevented or evaded by the government and officers of the state of Georgia, the same was never served. A monition was also issued, and served on the governor and treasurer of the state of Georgia. The libel proceeded to state the proceedings in the circuit court of the sixth circuit, in which it was ordered, that it should be held a sufficient execution of the warrant, if the governor of Georgia should sign an acknowledgment that the slaves were held by him, subject to the jurisdiction of the court; upon which, on the 15th of May 1823, John Clark, the governor of Georgia, signed a paper, filed in the court on the 24th December 1823, by which he acknowledged, that the governor of Georgia held the negroes levied on by virtue of sundry executions by the sheriff of Baldwin county, "subject to the order of the circuit court of the United States for the district of Georgia, after the claim of the said sheriff, or prior thereto, if *the claim in the circuit court shall be adjudged to have priority of the proceeding in the state court." *631] The libel stated, that the executions referred to had been levied on the slaves, as the property of William Bowen, and the proceedings in the case showed that the same did not belong to him. That the libellant relied on the stipulation entered into by the governor of Georgia, by which the jurisdiction of the circuit court of the United States was admitted; and he proceeded to prosecute his appeal in the circuit court, in which no exception to its jurisdiction in the case was suggested or moved. In the circuit court, the rights of the libellant were established; the illegal outfit of the Successor was fully proved; and every other matter shown, to entitle him, as a Spanish subject, to the restitution of his plundered property. From the decree of the circuit court, appeals were entered to the supreme court of the United States. The libel then stated the proceedings in the cases in the supreme court, of January term 1828, as the same are reported in 1 Pet. 110, &c., and complained that the jurisdiction of the supreme court, in the case, was denied by the governor of Georgia, on behalf of the state, in direct violation of the stipulation entered into by him, consenting to, and acknowledging the said jurisdiction; by which the said court were prevented proceeding to give a decree or judgment in the case. That by reason of the proceedings aforesaid, and of other acts of the state of Georgia, her officers and agents, which the libel alleged to have been tortious, and by the sale and dispersion of the slaves, the libellant was prevented seizing or identifying his property; he was without remedy or redress, unless this court will cause the state of Georgia to do him right in the premises. Wherefore, the libellant prayed the court to award admiralty process against the state of Georgia, to be issued and served as the court might direct, citing the said state of Georgia, as well as all others concerned, to show cause why the proceeds of the said slaves, paid into the treasury of the said state, should not be paid over to the libellant; the slaves remaining in the possession of the state restored to him; a just and reasonable compensation decreed to him for the slaves, converted to her own Ward v. Gregory. *use, or otherwise taken by the state; and such other damages allowed to him, as the owner of the slaves, as the court might think proper, against the state of Georgia, &c. MARSHALL, Ch. J., delivered the opinion of the court.-This is not a case where the property is in custody of a court of admiralty, or brought within its jurisdiction, and in the possession of any private person; it is not, therefore, one for the exercise of that jurisdiction. It is a mere personal suit against a state, to recover proceeds in its possession, and in such a case, no private person has a right to commence an original suit in this court against a state. *GEORGE W. WARD and RICHARD K. CALL, Register and Receiver [*633 (U. S.), Appellants, v. LEWIS GREGORY. The same Appellants v. JACOB ROBINSON and F. Swearingen. Appeal. A mandamus was issued by the superior court of appeals of the middle district of Florida, directed to the register and receiver of the western land-district of Florida, commanding them to permit the entry and purchase of certain lands; from this proceeding, the register and receiver appealed to this court. The appeal was dismissed; the proceeding at mandamus being at common law, and therefore, the removal to this court should have been by writ of error. APPEALS from the Court of Appeals for the territory of Florida. White moved to dismiss these cases, on the grounds that the proceedings were at law in the courts of the United States for the territory of Florida, and that they had been brought up from the court of appeals of that territory, by appeals instead of by writs of error. On the 13th December, 1826, on the applications of the appellees to the superior court of appeals for the middle district of Florida, a mandamus was issued directed to George W. Ward, the register of the western land-district of Florida, and to Richard K. Call, receiver of public moneys in said district, commanding them to permit the persons praying for the mandamus to enter and purchase certain sections of land, described in the writ, under the provisions of the act of congress of the 22d of April 1826, which gave rights of pre-emption in the purchase of land to certain settlers in the states of Alabama and Mississippi, and the territory of Florida. From the superior court, the case was removed by a writ of error, to the court of appeals for the territory of Florida; and on the 21st of January 1831, the order of the superior court was affirmed by the court of appeals. From this judgment, the United States appealed to this court. THE COURT ordered the appeal to be dismissed; the proceeding by mandamus being at common law, and therefore, the cases should have been brought up by writs of error. 399 *Ex parte MARTHA BRADSTREET: In the Matter of MARTHA BRADSTREET, Demandant. Mandamus to judge. In the district court of the northern district of New York, writs of right were prosecuted for lands lying in that district, and neither in the writs nor in the counts, was there an averment of the value of the premises being sufficient in amount to give the court jurisdiction; the tenants appeared, and moved to dismiss the cause for want of jurisdiction; which motion was granted. Subsequently, the demandant moved to re-instate the cases and to amend, by inserting an averment that the premises were of the value of $500; which motion was denied by the court. The demandant also moved the court to compel full records of the judgments and orders of dismissal, and of the process in the several suits, to be made up and filed, so that the demandant might have the benefit of a writ of error to the supreme court, in order to have its decision upon the grounds and merits of such judgments and orders; the district court refused this motion. On a rule in the supreme court, for a mandamus to the district judge, and a return to the same, it was held, that the refusal to allow the amendment to the writ and count, by inserting the averment of the value of the property, was not the subject of examination in this court; the allowance of amendments to pleadings is in the discretion of the judge of the inferior court; and no control over the action of the judge in refusing or admitting them will be exercised by this court. The court granted a mandamus requiring the district judge to have the records of the cases made up, and to enter judgments thereon, in order to give the demandant the benefit of a writ of error to the supreme court. In cases where the demand is not for money, and the nature of the action does not require the value of the thing demanded to be stated in the declaration, the practice of this court, and of the courts of the United States has been, to allow the value to be given in evidence. This court will not exercise any control over the proceedings of an inferior court of the United States, in allowing or refusing to allow amendments in the pleadings, in cases depending in those courts; but every party in such courts has a right to the judgment of this court in a suit brought in those courts, provided the matter in dispute exceeds the value of $2000. Ar the January term of this court in 1832, on the motion of Mr. Jones, counsel for the demandant, the court granted "a rule on the district judge of the district court of the United States for the northern district of New York, commanding him to be and appear before this court, either in person, *635] or by an *attorney of this court, on the first day of the next January term of this court, to wit, on the second Monday of January Anno Domini, 1833, to show cause, if any he have, why a mandamus should not be awarded to the said district judge of the northern district of New York commanding him : 1. To reinstate, and proceed to try and adjudge, according to the law and right of the case, the several writs of right and the mises thereon joined, lately pending in said court, and said to have been dismissed by order of said court, between Martha Bradstreet, demandant, and Apollos Cooper et al., tenants. 2. Requiring said court to admit such amendments in the form of pleading, or such evidence as may be necessary to aver or to ascertain the jurisdiction of said court, in the several suits aforesaid. 3. Or, if sufficient cause should be shown by the said judge on the return of this rule, or should otherwise appear to this court, against a writ of mandamus, requiring the matters and things aforesaid to be done by the said judge; then to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue from this court, requiring the said judge to direct and cause full records of the judgments or orders of dismissal in the several suits aforesaid, and of processes of the same, to be duly made up and filed, so as to enable this the Ex parte Bradstreet. court to re-examine and decide the grounds and merits of such judgments or orders, upon writs of error; such records showing upon the face of each, what judgments or final orders dismissing, or otherwise definitively disposing of, said suits, were rendered by the said district court; at whose instance, upon what grounds, and what exceptions or objections were reserved or taken by said demandant, or on her behalf, to the judgments or decisions of the said district court in the premises, or to the motions whereon such judgments or decisions were found; and what motion or motions, application or applications, were made to said court, by the demandant, or on her behalf, and either granted or overruled by said district court, both before and after said judgments or decisions dismissing or otherwise finally disposing of said suits; especially, what motions or applications were made by said demandant, or on her behalf, to said district court, to be admitted to amend her counts in the said suits, or to produce evidence *to establish the value of the lands, &c., demanded in such counts, together with all the papers filed, and proceedings had in said suit [*636 respectively. (6 Pet. 774.) The Honorable Alfred Conklin, judge of the district court of the United States for the northern district of New York, appeared before the court, by Mr. Beardsley, his counsel; and in pursuance of the rule, made the following statement as a return thereto. To the supreme court of the United States: In answer to a rule granted by your honorable court, the certified copy whereof, hereunto annexed, was on the 21st of December instant served upon him, the undersigned begs leave respectfully to state, as follows: 1. That after the mises had been joined in the several causes mentioned in the rule, motions were made therein, on the part of the tenants, that the same should be dismissed, upon the ground that the counts respectively contained no allegation of the value of the matter in dispute; and that it did not therefore appear by the pleadings, that the causes were within the jurisdiction of the court. In conformity with what appeared to have been the uniform language of the national courts upon the question, and his own views of the law; and in accordance especially with several decisions in the circuit court for the third circuit (see 4 W. C. C. 482, 624), the undersigned granted these motions. Assuming that the causes were rightly dismissed, it follows, of course, that he ought not now to be required to reinstate them, unless leave ought also to be granted to the demandant to amend her counts. 2. After the dismissal of these causes, as above stated, motions were made therein, on the part of the demandant, that the same should be reinstated, and that she should be permitted to amend her counts. These motions the undersigned considered it to be his duty to deny; and he can, perhaps, in no other manner more properly show cause why he should not now be required to do what he then refused to do, than by here inserting a copy of the opinion which he delivered upon that occasion. This opinion is as follows: "This cause having, at a former term of the court, been dismissed, upon the ground, that it did not appear upon the face of the demandant's count, that the case was one to which the *jurisdiction of the court extends, [*637 a motion has been made by the demandant, for leave to amend her 7 PET.-26 401 |