Third circuit court, its sions.

In the third circuit, the said circuit court shall consist of the justice ses- of the supreme court residing within the said circuit, and the district judge of the district where such court shall be holden: and the sessions of the said court, in the district of New Jersey, shall commence on the first day of April, and the first day of October, annually; in the district of Pennsylvania, on the eleventh day of April, and the eleventh day of October, annually.

Act of March 3, 1803, ch. 32.

Fourth circuit

sions.

In the fourth circuit, the said circuit court shall consist of the justice court, its ses of the supreme court residing within the said circuit, and the district judge of the district where such court shall be holden: and the sessions of the said court, in the district of Delaware, shall commence on the third day of June, and the twenty-seventh day of October, annually; in the district of Maryland, on the first day of May, and the seventh day of November, annually; to be holden hereafter at the city of Baltimore only. In the fifth circuit, the circuit court shall consist of the present chief justice of the supreme court, and the district judge of the district where such court shall be holden: and the sessions of the said court, in the district of Virginia, shall commence on the twenty-second day of May, and Act of Feb. the twenty-second day of November, annually; in the district of North ruary 4, 1807, Carolina, on the fifteenth day of June, and the twenty-ninth day of December, annually.

Fifth circuit court, its sessions.

ch. 5.

Sixth circuit

court, its sions.

1807, ch. 16. At Charleston. Columbia.

Savannah.

Louisville.

Provisions if the judges do

not attend.

In the sixth circuit, the said circuit court shall consist of the junior ses- associate justice of the supreme court, in the fifth circuit, and the district judge of the district where such court shall be holden: and the sessions of the said court, in the district of South Carolina, shall commence at Charleston on the twentieth day of May, and at Columbia on the thirtieth day of November, annually; in the district of Georgia, on the sixth day of May at Savannah, and on the fourteenth day of December hereafter at Louisville, annually: Provided, that when only one of the judges hereby directed to hold the circuit courts, shall attend, such circuit court may be held by the judge so attending; and that when any of the said days shall happen on a Sunday, then the said court hereby directed to be holden on such day, shall be holden on the next day thereafter; and the circuit courts constituted by this act, shall be held at the same place or places in each district of every circuit, as by law they were respectively required to be held previous to the thirteenth day of February, one thousand eight hundred and one, excepting as is herein before directed. And none of the said courts shall be holden until after the first day of July next, and the clerk of each district court shall be also clerk of the circuit court in such district, except as is herein after excepted.

One judge may adjourn the

court.

1808, ch. 29.

Clerks of district to be clerks

of circuit courts. With an exception.

Justices of the

supreme court

to allot them

elves among the circuits. Allotment to be entered record.

on

If they fail to

do it, the Presi

dent may make

the allotment. Allotment to he binding until

another is made.

Powers of the

circuit courts.
In writs of error

and appeal, the
opinion of the
justice of the

supreme court to prevail.

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That on every appointment which shall be hereafter made of a chief justice or associate justice, the said chief justice and associate justices shall allot themselves among the aforesaid circuits as they shall think fit, and shall enter such allotment on record. And in case no such allotment shall be made by them at their session next succeeding such appointment, and also, after the appointment of any judge, as aforesaid, and before any allotment shall have been made, it shall and may be lawful for the President of the United States to make such allotment as he shall deem proper, which allotment made in either case, shall be binding until another allotment shall be made; and the circuit courts constituted by this act, shall have all the power, authority and jurisdiction within the several districts of their respective circuits that before the thirteenth day of February, one thousand eight hundred and one, belonged to the circuit courts of the United States, and in all cases which, by appeal or writ of error, are or shall be removed from a district to a circuit court, judgment shall be rendered in conformity to the opinion of the judge of the supreme court presiding in

such circuit court.

SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That whenever any question shall occur before a circuit court, upon which the opinions of the judges shall be opposed, the point upon which the disagreement shall happen, shall, during the same term, upon the request of either party, or their counsel, be stated under the direction of the judges, and certified under the seal of the court, to the supreme court, at their next session to be held thereafter; and shall, by the said court, be finally decided.(a) And the decision

(a) The decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, upon the provisions of this section, are: The law which empowers the supreme court to take cognizance of questions adjourned from a circuit court, gives jurisdiction over the single point on which the judges were divided; not over the whole cause. Wayman et al. v. Southard et al., 10 Wheat. 1; 6 Cond. Rep. 1.

Where the court is equally divided, the decree of the court below is of course affirmed, so far as the point of division goes. The Antelope, 10 Wheat. 66; 6 Cond. Rep. 30.

The supreme court has no jurisdiction in a case in which the judges of the circuit court have divided in opinion upon a motion for a rule to show cause why the taxation of the costs of the marshal on an execution should not be reversed and corrected. Bank of the United States v. Green and others, 6 Peters, 26.

Where the court is equally divided in opinion upon a writ of error the judgment of the inferior court is affirmed. Etting v. The Bank of the United States, 11 Wheat. 59; 6 Cond. Rep. 216.

Where a case is certified to the supreme court upon a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court, and the points upon which they were so divided, are too imperfectly stated to enable the supreme court to pronounce any opinion upon them, it will neither award a venire facias de novo, nor certify any opinion to the court below, but will merely certify that they are too imperfectly stated. Perkins v. Hart's Ex'rs, &c., 11 Wheat. 237; 6 Cond. Rep. 287.

It appeared on a certificate from the circuit court of the United States of Pennsylvania, that the judges of the court were divided on a motion in arrest of judgment. Held, that judgment must be given on the verdict. United States v. Worrall, 2 Dall. 338.

Where a case is certified from a circuit court of the United States, the judges of the circuit court having differed in opinion upon questions of law which arose on the trial of the cause; the supreme court cannot be called upon to express an opinion on the whole facts of the case, instead of upon particular points of law, growing out of the same. Adams, Cunningham & Co. v. Jones, 12 Peters, 207.

The intention of Congress, in passing the act authorizing a division of opinion of the judges of the circuit courts of the United States to be certified to the supreme court was, that a division of the judges of the circuit court, upon a single and material point, in the progress of the cause, should be certified to the supreme court for its opinion; and not the whole cause. When a certificate of division brings up the whole cause, it would be, if the court should decide it, in effect, the exercise of original, rather than appellate jurisdiction. White v. Turk et al., 12 Peters, 238.

This case came up to the supreme court, from the circuit court, upon a division of opinion between the judges of the court. It was decided by the supreme court, that the question certified would, alone, be considered; each party being left to bring up the whole case from the circuit court, by a writ of error. Ogle v. Lee, 2 Cranch, 33.

The question certified from the circuit court of North Carolina, was, "whether the act of assembly, (of North Carolina,) entitled, an act concerning proving wills, and to prevent frauds in the management of intestates' estates, passed in 1715, recited in the plea of the defendants, was, under all the circumstances stated, and the various acts passed by the legislature of North Carolina, a bar to this action." The certificate stated, that the 9th section of the act had been pleaded by the defendant, in bar to the action. The certificate of the division was granted on the motion of the plaintiff, by his counsel; and at his request, a statement of the facts, "made under the direction of the judges," was certified. The certificate, thus made out, set forth all the laws of North Carolina, which operated on the question certified; and stated the questions which arose in the cause, on which the opinions of the judges were divided. The court decided in favour of the plaintiff. Ogden, Adm'r of Cornell v. Blackledge, Ex'r of Sater, 2 Cranch, 272; 1 Cond. Rep. 411.

The certificate of division of opinion by the judges of the circuit court of Virginia, stated, "In this cause it occurred as a question, whether Hepburn and Dundas, the plaintiffs in this cause, who are citi. zens and residents in the District of Columbia; and are so stated in the pleadings; can maintain an action in the supreme court against the defendant, who is a citizen and inhabitant of the district and the commonwealth of Virginia, and is also stated so to be in the pleadings: or whether, for want of jurisdiction, the said suit ought to be dismissed." It was certified that the circuit court had no jurisdiction in the case. Hepburn and Dundas v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445; 1 Cond. Rep. 444.

This case was certified from the circuit court of Pennsylvania, the judges being divided in opinion upon the question, "whether, in the state of the pleadings, the judgment ought to be rendered for the plaintiffs. The supreme court said-Judgment, therefore, on the pleadings, must be rendered for the plaintiffs. Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, who delivered the opinion of the court, said: "By the twenty-sixth section of the judicial act, it is directed that, in cases of this description, the court shall render judgment for so much as is due according to equity. And when the sum for which judgment is to be rendered is uncertain, the same shall, if either of the parties request it, be assessed by a jury. In this case, it is the opinion of a majority of the court, that the judgment ought to be rendered for so much as remains due of the sum of one hundred and seventy thousand guilders, calculating interest thereon from the 1st of March, 1803; and if either of the parties request it, that a jury be empannelled to ascertain the value of this sum in moncy of the United States." United States v. Gurney and others, 4 Cranch, 333; 2 Cond. Rep. 132.

This case was certified on division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court, on a motion in arrest of judgment, the question being, whether the assignee of a part of a patent right, cannot maintain an action on the case, for a violation of the patent right. 6 Cranch, 324.

In this case, the question certified, on which the judges of the circuit were divided in opinion, was

Decision of the supreme to be circuit court and

remitted to the

to be of effect.

of the supreme court, and their order in the premises, shall be remitted to the circuit court, and be there entered of record, and shall have effect according to the nature of the said judgment and order: Provided, that nothing herein contained shall prevent the cause from proceeding, if, in 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 the 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.

The defendant was indicted in the circuit court of Vermont, under 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. The question certified to the supreme court, from the circuit court of West Tennessee, was on the construction of the act of the legislature of Tennessee, relative to possession of lands. Patton's Lessee v. Easton, 1 Wheat. 476; 3 Cond. Rep. 631.

The supreme court of the United States has no jurisdiction of causes brought before it, on a certificate of division of opinion of the judges of the circuit court, for the District of Columbia. The appellate jurisdiction extends, only, to the final judgment and decrees of that court. Ross v. Triplett, 3 Wheat. 600; 4 Cond. Rep. 351.

The question referred to the supreme court, by a certificate of division between the judges of the circuit court, on facts stated by the court, was, whether the circuit court of Kentucky 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.

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.

The difference of opinion of the judges of the circuit court of Delaware, was, whether certain depositions taken under a commission issued from the circuit court of Delaware, could be read 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.

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. The jury found a special verdict, in the circuit court of Virginia, on a trial of an indictment for piracy; and on a motion to arrest the 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.

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., 5 Wheat. 412; 4 Cond. Rep. 708.

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 belonging to the cause. A motion for a new trial 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.

On a trial of a writ of right in the circuit court of Kentucky, the judges of the court differed in opin ion 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.

The question certified from the circuit court of Maryland, in this case, was on a motion to instruct the jury, that, on the whole evidence, the plaintiffs cannot sustain their demand. All the evidence given on the trial of the cause was before the supreme court. The supreme court certified their opinion to the circuit court. Willinks v. Hollingsworth, 6 Wheat. 240; 5 Cond. Rep. 79.

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.

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 su preme court. Wayman et al. v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1; 6 Cond. Rep. 1.

the opinion of the court, farther proceedings can be had without prejudice to the merits and provided also, that imprisonment shall not be allowed, nor punishment in any case be inflicted, where the judges of the said court are divided in opinion upon the question touching the said imprisonment or punishment.

Imprisonment, &c. not to be the court is divided.

inflicted when

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.

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.

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 court. 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. Devercaux v. Marr, 12 Wheat. 212; 6 Cond. Rep. 522.

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.

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 was 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.

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.

An action was instituted in the circuit court of Kentucky on a promissory note, by the Bank of the United States: and the defendants filed a plea, setting forth circumstances which brought up the question of usury, in the discounting of the note. The plaintiffs demurred; and the judges of the circuit court differed in 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.

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.

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 Sailor's Snug Harbor, 3 Peters, 99.

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 indorser 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.

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 . Gould, 4 Peters, 392.

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 VOL. II.-21 0 2

North Caroli

na district divided into three districts.

SEC. 7. And be it further enacted, That the district of North Carolina shall be divided into three districts, one to consist of all that part thereof which, by the laws of the state of North Carolina, now forms the districts of Edenton and Halifax, which district shall be called the dis

estate of a testator. These questions were certified to the supreme court. Peters, 160.

Backhouse v. Patton, 5

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.

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.

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.

In this case the defendant was indicted and convicted of robbing the United States' mail, and being pardoned by the President of the United States, a question arose in the circuit court of the United States, whether the defendant should plead the pardon. On this question the judges of the court were opposed in opinion, and the question was certified to the supreme court, for its decision. United States v. Wilson, 7 Peters, 150.

This case was submitted to the circuit court, on a statement of facts agreed upon by the counsel of the plaintiff, and the district attorney of the United States. The whole of the agreed facts were sent up with the record. Upon the trial and statement of facts in the cause, certain questions had occurred, on which the opinions of the judges were opposed; and the points of disagreement were certified to the supreme court for their decision. The court decided on all the questions certified, with one exception. Harris v. Elliott, 10 Peters, 25.

An action of assumpsit was commenced by the plaintiff against the collector of the port of New York, to recover a sum paid to him for duties on certain goods; the goods not being liable, under the law, to the duties charged by the collector. On the trial of the cause, the judges of the circuit court of the southern district of New York were opposed in opinion, as to the construction of the act of Congress, by which the duties were claimed; and being so opposed in opinion, the question as to the construction of the law was certified to the supreme court for decision. Elliott v. Swartwout, 10 Peters,

137.

An action of detinue was instituted in the circuit court of West Tennessee, to recover a slave. During the progress of the suit, the defendant died; and his personal representative moved to dismiss the suit, on the ground that it did not survive. On this motion, the judges of the court were divided in opinion; and the same was certified, for its decision, to the supreme court. Davis v. Braden, 10 Peters, 286.

A question, whether a plaintiff in ejectinent shall be permitted to enlarge the term in the demise, is one within the discretion of the court, to which the motion for the purpose is submitted; and it cannot be certified to the supreme court, if the judges of the circuit court are divided in opinion. Lanning's Lessce v. Vaughan et al., 10 Peters, 366.]

Questions respecting the practice of the circuit court in equity cases, which depend on the sound discretion of the court, in the application of the rules which regulate the course of equity proceedings, to the circumstances of such particular case; are not questions which can be certified, on a division of opinion of the circuit court. Packer v. Nixon, 10 Peters, 408.

The questions certified to the supreme court were, whether, on certain facts which were in evidence in the cause, the deed was admissible in evidence, under the acts of the legislatures of North Carolina and Tennessee; and whether certain evidence, which was given on the trial, did or did not conduce to prove that the defendants purchased under a particular person. On these questions, the judges of the circuit court of Tennessee were opposed in opinion; and the same were certified, and answered by the supreme court. Denn, Lessee of Scott v. Reid et al., 10 Peters, 524.

An action of debt was instituted on an act of the legislature of New York, to recover certain penalties, for bringing into the state of New York certain paupers, in violation of the provisions of the act. The declaration set out the law of New York, and the breach of its provisions, by the defendant. The defendant demurred to the declaration, and the plaintiff joined in the demurrer. The judges of the circuit court of the southern district of New York were opposed in opinion on the question; whether the act of the legislature of New York, mentioned in the declaration, assumes to regulate commerce between the port of New York and foreign ports. This was certified to the supreme court. City of New York v. Milne, 11 Peters, 102.

The defendant was indicted for forging a bill of the Bank of the United States; and the judges of the circuit court of the United States for the Pennsylvania district, being opposed in opinion, whether the same was a bill of the Bank of the United States, according to the eighteenth section of the act, granting a charter to the bank; the same, with the indictment, was certified to the supreme court for its decision. United States v. Brewster, 7 Peters, 164.

The opinions of the judges of the circuit court of Pennsylvania were opposed in opinion, on a question arising on a demurrer, by the United States, to a plea of autre fois acquit, to an indictment for passing a counterfeit bank note of the Bank of the United States; and the same was certified to the supreme court. United States v. Randenbush, 8 Peters, 288.

The judges of the circuit court of Massachusetts were opposed in opinion on five points which arose on the trial, before a jury, of the cause; and they were, with all the evidence, certified to the supreme court for its decision." Carrington et al. v. The Merchants' Ins. Co., 8 Peters, 495.