The counsel for the plaintiff, having deduced a title to the lands in question to Henrietta, wife of Daniel Dulany, and shown a conveyance of Daniel Dulany and Henrietta, his wife, to Richard Bennett dated the 13th of August, 1748, consideration £5, offered in evidence an instrument, purporting to be a certified copy under the hand and seal of the Recorder of [—] County, State of Maryland, of a declaration of uses by Richard Bennett of the said conveyance dated the 19th November, 1748. The instrument was not recorded pursuant to any Act of Assembly of the State of Maryland. Possession of the land was shown to have gone according to the uses from the date of the instrument till about the time the defendants went into possession, which was more than twenty years, according to the uses.
William Stedham, Esq., Sheriff. Advertisements set up in all the hundreds in the county, except two lower hundreds which were set up by Mr. Bennett. On February 19 and 20, 1798, I set up the tracts and sold them. I do not think the land would sell for as much now. Archibald Douglas gave £100 to get clear of his bargain, though I do not know the fact. I got a list of the judgments from Glasford, Wyley and Francis Haughey.
Caleb P. Bennett. Robinson crossed the ferry between 9 and 10 o'clock the night before he was taken in Wilmington and returned again before day.
agree with the allegatu. 2 Bos. and Pul. 281. Wilson v. Gilbert. 3 Bos. and Pul. 559. Whitwell v. Bennett. 6 T.R. 363. Spalding v. Mure. 5 East, 111. note. Bordenave v. Bartlett. 3 Esp. Rep. 205. 3 Bos.
In the case of Coulter's Lessee v. Hodge, at Knoxville, a copy of an entry signed "A. B., E. T." was received, though without date, and though the Court knew that A. B. had not been entry taker for a great length of time. The case of a mittimus by a justice of the peace does not apply.
be presumed; they cited 1. ca. in ch. 291. Bisco v. Earl of Banbury. 2. ca. in ch. 246, Moore v. Bennett § Ambler, 311, 312. 1. Atkins, 490, Smith v. Law. Vernon, 385, Ferrars v. Cherry. And to show what
At the July adjourned term of the Court below, in the year 1808, M`Kim, a citizen of Maryland, recovered a judgment in ejectment against Voorhies, a citizen of Kentucky, for the undivided third part of a water mill, with its appurtenances, in the county of Franklin, in the state of Kentucky. At the same time Voorhies filed his bill in Chancery in the Court below against M`Kim, and John Instone, a citizen of Kentucky, and Hayden Edwards, a citizen of South Carolina, claiming an equitable lien on the said third part of the mill, c. on account of contracts, c. between Bennett Pemberton (under whom Voorhies held the premises) and Hayden Edwards and John Instone; Pemberton having sold the said third part of the mill, c. to Edwards, who sold to Instone, who sold and conveyed to M`Kim. Instone was the only Defendant served with process from the Court below. M`Kim and Instone answered the bill, and brought on a motion to dissolve the injunction on the merits, which was overruled by the Court below. At the term next preceding November term, 1810, ( Edwards not having answered) the Court below dismissed the suit as to him; and as to Instone, for want of jurisdiction; after which…
NOTE. — Upon the subject of an indictable trespass to personal property, see S. v. Flowers, 6 N.C. 225; S. v. McDowell, 8 N.C. 449; S. v. Mills, 13 N.C. 420; S. v. Love, 19 N.C. 267; S. v. Bennett, 29 N.C. 43; S. v. Hemphill, ibid., 109.
Manuel Pinto, a native of Buenos Ayres, being in London, on the 26th of August, 1813, entered into a contract with John Drinkald, owner of the ship "Nereide," whereof William Bennett was master, whereby the said Drinkald let to the said Pinto the said vessel to freight for a voyage to Buenos Ayres and back again to London, on the conditions mentioned in the charter party. The owner convenanted that the said vessel, being in all respects sea-worthy, well manned, victualed, equipped, provided, and furnished with all things needful for such a vessel, should take on board a cargo to be provided for her, that the master should sign the customary bills of lading, and that the said ship being laden and dispatched, should join and sail with the first convoy that should depart from Great Britain for Buenos Ayres: that on his arrival the master should give notice thereof to the agents or assigns of the said freighter, and make delivery of the cargo according to bills of lading; and that the said ship, being in all respects sea-worthy, manned, c. as before mentioned, should take and receive on board at Buenos Ayres all such lawful cargo as they should tender for that purpose, for…
where the repealing statute contains a provision expressly saving the right to prosecute. [Acc. Bennett v. State, 2 Y. 472, and Wharton v. State, 5 Cold. 6, citing this case.] To effect a repeal, it is