Divided Court. common law jurisdiction in cases of libel. United | to the circuit court. United States v. Giles and States v. Hudson and Goodwin, 7 Cranch, 32; 2 others, 9 Cranch, 212; 3 Cond. Rep. 377. Cond. Rep. 405. 21. In this case, the question certified, on which the judges of the circuit were divided in opinion, was, 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 an 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. 22. The defendant was indicted in the circuit court of Vermont, under the 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. 23. This case came up from the circuit court of Ohio, upon a certificate, stating that the judges of that court were divided in opinión upon the question, whether that court had power to issue a mandamus to the register of a landoffice in Ohio, commanding him to issue a final certificate of purchase to the plaintiff, for certain lands in that state. M'Intire v. Wood, 7 Cranch, 504; 2 Cond. Rep. 588. 26. This case was certified from the circuit court of the United States, for the district of Vermont; the judges of the court being divided in opinion, as to the constitutionality of the act of congress to prohibit trading with the enemy; the defendant being indicted and convicted on that statute, for attempting to transport "fat cattle, which were then and there munitions of war," from Vermont to Canadá. A motion was made, in arrest of judgment, because fat cattle were neither provisions nor munitions of war, within the meaning of the statute. On this motion the judges were divided in opinion. It was directed to be certified, that fat cattle were munitions of war, within the meaning of the act United States v. Job L. Barber, 9 Cranch, 243; Cond. Rep. 405. 27. The question on which the judges of the circuit court divided in opinion, and which was certified to the supreme court, was, whether fat cattle are (! Imunitions of war," and "driving them," transportation, under the act of congress. United States v. Sheldon, 2 Wheat. 119; 4 Cond. Rep. 62. 28. The question certified to the supreme court, from the circuit court of West Tennessee was on the construction of the act of the legis lature of Tennessee, relative to possession of lands. Patton's Lessee v. Easton, 1 Wheat. 476 3 Cond. Rep. 631. Rep. 351. 24. This case was certified from the circuit 29. The supreme court of the United States court of the district of Vermont, in which, upon has no jurisdiction of causes brought before it, an action of ejectment brought by the town of on a certificate of division of opinion of the Pawlet, to recover possession of the glebe lot, judges of the circuit court for the District of as it was called, in that town, the opinions of the Columbia. The appellate jurisdiction extends judges were opposed upon the question, "whe-only to the final judgment and decrees of that ther judgment should be rendered for the plain-court. Ross v. Triplett, 3 Wheat. 600; 4 Cond. tiffs or the defendant, upon a verdict found, subject to the opinion of the court, upon a case stated." The case stated was sent up in the record. It was certified to the circuit court, "on the whole, the opinion of a majority of the court is, that upon the special statement of facts by the parties, judgment ought to pass for the plaintiffs." The Town of Pawlet v. Daniel Clarke and others, 9 Cranch, 292; 3 Cond. Rep. 408. 30. An action of debt was brought in the circuit court of Rhode Island, on a bond, that I. S. should continue and be a true prisoner; and the defendants pleaded a discharge, under the law of the state, for the relief of poor debtors. The plaintiff replied that I. S. did not remain a true prisoner, and that the discharge was fraudulently obtained; to which replication the defendants demurred. The judges of the circuit court were divided in opinion on the sufficiency of the replication, and this division was certified to the supreme court. The court ordered it to be certified, that the replication was insufficient to avoid the plea of the defendants. Ammidon v. Smith et al., 1 Wheat. 447; 3 Cond. Rep. 619. 25. This case was certified from the circuit court for the district of New York, in which the judges of that court were divided in opinion upon ten questions of law, arising out of a special verdict. The record stated the pleadings in an action of debt, brought by the United States against the defendant, late marshal of the United States, and his sureties, and set forth the condi- 31. The defendant was indicted for murder, tion of the bond. It contained the special ver- in the circuit court of Massachusetts, under the dict, in which certain questions as to the law, on eighth section of the act of congress of the 30th the facts found, were submitted to the court. of April, 1790. The offence was committed on The case was, on being first brought up, re- board a vessel of the United States, lying in the manded by the supreme court, on the ground harbour of Boston. The jury found the defenthat the questions on which the judges of the dant guilty; and upon the facts being stated, a circuit court were divided, were imperfectly motion for a new trial was made; on the quesstated. It came back with a certificate, that tions arising on which motion, the judges of the "the opinions of the judges of the circuit court circuit court were divided in opinion. The queswere divided on ten questions arising on the said tions were, as to the jurisdiction of the court special verdict ;" which questions were set forth. over the offence, and whether the state courts of The opinion of the supreme court was certified | Massachusetts had not jurisdiction of the offence. Divided Court. The court directed it to be certified, that the cir- | from the circuit court of Delaware could be read 32. In this case, it was certified to the supreme court, that the judges of the circuit court of Virginia were opposed in opinion, whether the plaintiffs, the devisees under the will of Silas Hart, were capable of taking under the will. The will of Silas Hart, under which the question arose, was certified, with the question on which the circuit was divided. The court directed it to be certified that the devisees were incapable of taking. Trustees of the Philadelphia Baptist Association v. Hart's Ex'rs, 4 Wheat. 1; 4 Cond. Rep. 371. 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. 37. 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. 33. The question referred to the supreme court, by a certificate of division between the 38. The jury found a special verdict, in the judges of the circuit court, on facts stated by circuit court of Virginia, on a trial of an indictthe court, was, whether the circuit court of Ken-ment for piracy; and on a motion to arrest the tucky 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. 34. An action was brought on two promissory notes, made in New York, on the 22d March, 1811, against the maker. The defendant pleaded his discharge under the insolvent laws of New York, averring his compliance with the law, and a certificate of his discharge under the act of 3d April, 1811. Four questions arose in this case, on which the judges of the circuit court of New York were divided in opinion: 1. Whether, since the adoption of the constitution, the power to pass a bankrupt law is not exclusively in congress. 2. Whether the act of New York is a bankrupt act, within the meaning of the constitution of the United States. 3. Whether the act of New York, of 1811, impairs the obligation of Contracts. 4. Whether the plea of the discharge, bar, is a good plea. The judges of the circuit were opposed in opinion; and on motion of the plaintiff's counsel, the questions were certified the supreme court for their final decision. The court ordered it to be certified, that since the adoption of the constitution of the United States, a state has authority to pass a bankrupt law; provided the law does not impair the obligation of contracts, within the meaning of the constitution and provided there be no act of congress in force, to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy, conflicting with such law: and that the act of New York, so far as it attempts to discharge the contract sued upon, is a law violating the obligations of contracts. Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122; 4 Cond. Rep. 410. 35. 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. 36. The difference of opinion of the judges of the circuit court of Delaware was, whether cerJain depositions taken under a commission issued 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 act of congress of 3d March, 1819, 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. 39. 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., Wheat. 412; 5 Cond. Rep. 708. 5 40. 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 a 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 be longing to the cause. A motion for a new tria! 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. 41. On a writ of a trial 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. 369. Divided Court. 42. The question certified from the circuit | indictment against the defendant for destroying. court of Maryland, in this case, was on a motion a vessel, with intent to injure the underwriters. to instruct the jury, that, on the whole evidence, Certain instructions were given by the circuit the plaintiffs cannot sustain their demand. All court, upon which the jury found the defendant the evidence given on the trial of the cause was guilty. The judges of the court were divided in before the supreme court. The supreme court opinion on the motion, and the same was certicertified their opinion to the circuit court. Wil-fied to the supreme court. The court ordered it links v. Hollingsworth, 6 Wheat. 240; 5 Cond. to be certified to the circuit court, that the points Rep. 79. were correctly decided by the circuit court. The United States v. Amedy, 11 Wheat. 392; 6 Cond. Rep. 362. 43. A special verdict was found by the jury, and the court divided in opinion upon a question of law which arose upon it; which division was certified to the supreme court. The court decided that judgment on the special verdict should be given for the plaintiff; and directed a certificate for the plaintiffs. Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, &c. v. The Town of New Haven, 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489. 44. This cause came up from the circuit court for the southern district of New York, upon a certificate of division of opinion of the judges of that court. The prisoner, Perez, was put on his trial for a capital offence; and the jury being unable to agree, was discharged without giving a verdict, without the consent of the counsel of the United States or of his counsel. The counsel claimed the right of the defendant to his discharge, and the court divided in opinion on the motion to discharge him; which division was certified to the supreme court. The court directed it to be certified, that the discharge by the jury not agreeing, constitutes no bar to further proceedings, and gives no right of exemption to the prisoner being again put on his trial. United States v. Perez, 9 Wheat. 579; 5 Cond. Rep. 689. 45. It was certified to the circuit court in this case, that an insolvent debtor, who has received his discharge under a state insolvent law, is not entitled to be discharged from execution at the suit of the United States. United States v. Wilson, 8 Wheat. 253; 5 Cond. Rep. 432. 46. 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. 47. 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. 48. The judges of the circuit court of Virginia were divided in opinion on a motion, by the counsel of the defendant, for a new trial, on an 49. The defendants, Kelly and others, were indicted in the circuit court of Pennsylvania, for feloniously endeavouring to make a revolt on the high seas, on board of a merchant vessel of the United States. They were found guilty; and their counsel moved to arrest the judgment, on the ground "that the act of congress does not define the offence of making a revolt, and that it was not competent to the court to give a judicial definition of a crime heretofore unknown." The opinions of the judges of the circuit court were divided on this motion, and the same was certified to the supreme court. United States v. Kelly et al., 11 Wheat. 417; 6 Cond. Rep. 370. 50. The jury having found a verdict of guilty against the defendant, for offering violence to the person of the chargé d'affaires of Spain, his counsel moved to arrest the judgment, on the ground "that the circuit court has not jurisdiction of the matter, inasmuch as it is a case affecting an ambassador or other public minister." The opinions of the judges being opposed on this point, the disagreement was certified to the supreme court. The court ordered it certified to the circuit court, that it had jurisdiction of the case. United States v. Ortega, 11 Wheat. 467; 6 Cond. Rep. 394. 51. An action of general indebitatus assumpsit was brought in the circuit court of Ohio, for work, labour and services in exploring and surveying lands, showing and selling them, investigating titles, and paying taxes, &c. The plaintiff also filed an additional bill of particulars, stating other services. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, "if, on points reserved, the court should be of opinion that the law is for the plaintiff; if not, for the defendant." The opinions of the judges being opposed, the cause was removed to the supreme court, upon a certificate of disagreement upon points stated, and the special verdict. The points were, that the whole evidence, and certain letters, show a subsisting and open agreement at the time of action brought; that the whole evidence constitutes a special agreement, &c.; that the plaintiff cannot recover on two items of the account, &c. The supreme court held the points imperfectly stated, and refused to give a certificate of their opinion. Perkins v. Hart's Ex'r, 11 Wheat. 237; 6 Cond. Rep. 287. 52. The certificate stated that the plaintiff, to maintain his action, offered in evidence a patent, purporting to be a grant, in due form of law, to one Basil Jones, for seven thousand three hundred acres of land, including the premises in question; and also the warrant of survey on which the tract of land was surveyed and laid Divided Court. off, and the minutes of the court which granted | of Massachusetts, was, whether two or more the warrant. The defendant objected to the persons, jointly charged in the same indictment grant going to the jury, affirming the same to be with a capital offence, have a right to sever in void in law, inasmuch as no grant could issue, their trials, the counsel of the United States obunder the laws of the state, for so great a num- jecting thereto; or whether it is a matter to be ber of acres as are comprised in the grant. On allowed in the discretion of the court. The court this question the court was divided, and the di- ordered it to be certified to the circuit court, vision was certified to the supreme court. The that it was a matter within the discretion of the court directed it to be certified to the circuit court. United States v. Marchant and Colson, 12 court, that the laws of Georgia, at the time the Wheat. 480; 6 Cond. Rep. 588. grant was issued, did not prohibit the issuing a patent to any person for more than one thousand acres of land, &c. Patterson v. Winn, 11 Wheat. 380; 6 Cond. Rep. 355. 53. This case came up on a certificate of division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court for Kentucky, to quash the return of the marshal upon a venditioni exponas issued in the case. The court ordered it to be certified, that the return of the marshal was insufficient, and should be quashed. Bank of the United States v. Halstead, 10 Wheat. 51; 6 Cond. Rep. 221. 54. An action was instituted in the circuit court of Georgia, by the postmaster-general, against the defendant, a postmaster at Savannah, oй a bond executed by him to the postmastergeneral, for the recovery of a sum of money which came into his hands as postmaster. It was pleaded that the circuit court had not jurisdiction, as "it was not a suit in which the United States was a party; nor the debt declared as one contracted, authorized, or arising under a law of the United States, and on which jurisdiction had been given to the court." On the argument of the case, the opinions of the judges of the court were opposed on the question of jurisdiction; and it was certified to the supreme court. It was certified that the circuit court had jurisdiction of the case. The PostmasterGeneral v. Early, 12 Wheat. 136; 6 Cond. Rep. 480. court. 55. In this case, the judges of the circuit court of West Tennessee, after a judgment rendered in the court, divided in opinion as to the amount of the surety bond to be given by the party who applied for a writ of error; whereupon the division was certified to the supreme The court were of opinion, that it had no jurisdiction of the question on which the opinions of the judges of the circuit court were opposed; the division of opinion having arisen after a decision of the cause in the court below. It was certified, accordingly, to the circuit court. Devereaux v. Marr, 12 Wheat. 212; 6 Cond. Rep. 522. 56. In this case, an action of debt was brought in the circuit court of Rhode Island, on two bonds given, conditioned that N. H. should remain a true prisoner within the limits of the prison. The defendant pleaded a discharge from imprisonment by an act of the legislature of Rhode Island. The judges of the circuit court were opposed in opinion as to the validity of the discharge; and the same was certified to the supreme court. Mason v. Haile, 12 Wheat. 370; 6 Cond. Rep. 535. 57. The question before the court, on a certificate of division of opinion of the circuit court 58. A case was stated for the opinion of the court, in the circuit court of the southern district of New York, in an action against the endorsers of a bill of exchange, which had been paid for their honour; and a verdict was found for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court, on the case so stated. The judges of the court were divided in opinion on the following points: 1. Whether the letters offered in evidence by the defendants, and objected to, ought to have been admitted. 2. Whether the plaintiff had a right, under the circumstances, to accept and pay the bill upon which suit was brought for the honour of the defendants; and is entitled to recover the amount with interest, charges, &c. These points were directed to be certified to the supreme court; and the whole of the case stated came up with the certificate of division. The court directed it to be certified to the circuit court, that the plaintiff had a right, under the circumstances, to accept and pay the bill in question, under the protest, for the honour of the defendants; and is entitled to recover the amount with damages and interest. Konig v. Bayard et al., 1 Peters, 250. 59. An action was instituted in the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York, against the drawer, upon nine several bills of exchange; and a verdict was taken for the plaintiffs, subject to the opinion of the court, on a case agreed. The judges of the circuit court being divided in opinion upon certain points, the same were certified to the supreme court. The case stated formed a part of the record sent up to the supreme court. The supreme court directed the opinion of the court to be certified on each of the points, on which the judges of the circuit court had been divided in opinion, and which were argued before it. Schimmelpennich et al. v. Bayard et al., 1 Peters, 264. 60. This case came before the court on a certificate of a division of opinion between the judges of the circuit court of the southern district of New York; the court having divided in opinion on a motion for execution, after a verdict against the sureties of a postmaster, for the plaintiff. The circuit court directed the questions which arose on the motion, and on which they had differed, to be certified to the supreme court. Dox et al. v. The Postmaster-General, 1 Peters, 318. 61. The facts of the case were agreed by the counsel for the plaintiff and defendant; and the agreed case was stated in the record. The judges of the circuit court of Rhode Island having divided in opinion upon the case, the same was certified to the supreme court for decision. The Divided Court. court directed it to be certified, that the plaintiff | which all the matters in the cause were stated. was entitled to recover upon the facts agreed in The supreme court directed it to be certified to the case, and that judgment ought to be given the circuit court: 1. That the plaintiffs had a for the plaintiff. Gardner v. Collins, 2 Peters, 58. right to hold lands, and especially the lands in 62. An action was instituted in the circuit controversy: 2. That the plaintiffs are not barred court of Kentucky on a promissory note, by the by the statutes of limitations: 3. That no mesne Bank of the United States; and the defendants profits can be recovered, unless the parties, filed a plea, setting forth circumstances which plaintiffs, bring themselves within the provi brought up the question of usury, in the dis- sions of the laws of Vermont of 15th November, counting of the note. The plaintiffs demurred; 1830. The Society for the Propagation of the and the judges of the circuit court differed in Gospel v. The Town of Pawlet, 4 Peters, 480. opinion on the questions raised by the pleadings: 1. Whether the facts set forth in the plea, made out a case of usury. 2. Whether, if there was usury in the case, the note is invalid, so that no recovery can be had thereon. 3. Whether, if not wholly void, a part of the note can be recovered. Bank of the United States v. Owens and others, 2 Peters, 527. 63. Action on a bill of exchange. A judgment was confessed on a case stated, subject to the opinion of the court, whether the court had jurisdiction of the suit. The judges differed in opinion, and the question on which they divided, was certified to the supreme court. Buckner v. Finley and Van Lear, 2 Peters, 586. 64. A writ of right was brought in the circuit court of the southern district of New York, and the judges of the court were opposed in opinion on questions presented in the trial of the cause, on the pleadings, and on the merits. The record contained all the pleadings, and the evidence given on the trial; and the questions on which the judges were opposed, were certified to the supreme court. Inglis v. The Trustees of the Sailors' Snug Harbour, 3 Peters, 99. 65. The questions on which the judges of the circuit court of North Carolina were opposed in opinion, arose in an action instituted against the defendant, to recover damages for neglecting to institute a suit against the endorser of a promissory note, until after the remedy was barred by the statute of limitations. The question certified to the supreme court arose on the finding of the jury for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court, whether the statute of limitations was not a bar to the plaintiff's action against the defendant. Wilcox et al. v. The Ex'rs of Plummer, 4 Peters, 172. 66. On inspecting the record, it was perceived that the judges of the circuit court of Rhode Island, instead of dividing on one or more points, had divided on the whole case, and had directed the whole case to be certified to the supreme court. Considering this as irregular, the supreme court directed the cause to be remanded to the circuit court, that further proceedings may be had therein according to law. Saunders v. Gould, 4 Peters, 392. 67. This case was certified from the circuit court of Vermont, the judges of that court being opposed in opinion on three questions. 1. Whether the plaintiffs have shown that they have a right to hold lands: 2. Whether the plaintiffs are barred by certain statutes of limitations of covenant: 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled, and for how long, to recover mesne profits. These questions arose on an agreed case, in 68. A bill was filed on the equity side of the circuit court of Virginia, and the judges were opposed in opinion on questions arising in the case, as to the appropriation and distribution of the assets of the estate of a testator. These questions were certified to the supreme court. Backhouse v. Patton, 5 Peters, 160. 69. In an action on a bond to the United States, the judges of the circuit court of Maryland were divided in opinion as to the right of the plaintiffs to recover against the defendants as sureties for a debt due to the United States, by the Bank of Somerset. United States v. Robertson, 5 Peters, 641. 70. The question on which the judges of the circuit court of Maryland were opposed in opinion was, whether there was a variance between the contract declared upon, and the contract given in evidence; the action being against the defendants as surviving partners: when, it was alleged, that one of the defendants had died be fore any of the transactions happened, out of which the suit arose. Schimmelpennick v. Turner, 6 Peters, 1. 71. An action of debt was brought on a promissory note in the circuit court for the district of West Tennessee, and the judges of the court were opposed in opinion on questions which arose on the plaintiff's demurrers to the defendant's pleas; and also whether the averment of the citizenship of some of the parties to the suit, was sufficient. A certificate of this division of opinion was, by the direction of the circuit court, made to the supreme court, according to law. Kirkman v. Hamilton, 6 Peters, 20. 72. The judges of the circuit court of North Carolina were opposed in opinion, on a question, whether the priority to which the United States are entitled in case of a general assignment made by a debtor, comprehends a bond for duties executed anterior to the assignment, but not payable until after the same. The question was certified to the supreme court. United States v. The State Bank of North Carolina, 6 Peters, 29. 73. On the motion of the defendants, a rule was given in the circuit court of Ohio, on the marshal, to show cause why the taxation of costs in the case on execution, should not be reversed and corrected. The judges of the circuit court were divided in opinion, and the division was certified to the supreme court. Held, that the case was not within the provision of the judicial act of 1802; and that this question could not be certified to the supreme court. Bank of the U. States v. Green and others, 6 Peters, 26. 74. In this case the court decided that a division of opinion between the judges of the circuit |