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. Backhouse v. Patton, 5 Peters, 160.
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 rose 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 ejectment 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 Lessee 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.
