Mr. Justice DANIEL
delivered the opinion of the court.
The facts upon which this case is founded are' to the effect following. The legislature of Indiana, having by a law bearing date on the 20th January, 1826, laid off and established the county of Tippecanoe in that State; by the same act appointed four commissioners for the purpose of selecting and establishing a seat of justice for the county thus created, in conformity with the provision. of another statute of the State, passed on the 14th of January, 1824, entitled “ An act establishing seats of justice in new counties,.” and with the provisions of other acts amend- ' atory of the law last mentioned. Pending the investigation of the commissioners who took upon themselves the fulfilment of the duties prescribed by the statutes above mentioned, proffers were.made to them by various persons, proprietors of land in ■and adjacent to the town of .Lafayette, of certain lots and parcels of land as donations to the county of Tippecanoe, and amongst these proffers was that of the land involved in this suit, then held by.Samuel Sargeant, from whom the lessors of the plaintiffs deduce their title. The commissioners having accepted the donations offered as above mentioned, and selected the town of Lafayette as the seat of justice for the county of Tippecanoe, took from the»several donors their joint and several title-bond, dated May 4th, 1826, in the penalty of ten thousand dollars payable to the board of justices of the county to be thereafter organized, with condition that these obligors should convey by deed with general warranty to the board of justices, on the 1st day of October, 1826, the lots and parcels of land contained in their respective donations within the town of Lafayette, and took also the separate bond of Samuel Sargeant, conditioned to convey at the same period, by a like deed to the board of justices, another parcel of land of ten acres, adjoining the town, as in the conditions annexed to those bonds set forth. The board of justices appointed by the Governor of Indiana for the county of Tippecanoe, was organized on the 8th day of July, 1826, and on that day received the report .of the commissioners appointed by law to select the’seat of justice for the county of Tippecanoe, and at the same time received and accepted the joint and several ■obligation of Samuel Sargeant and others above mentioned; and also the separate bond of Samuel Sargeant, conditioned for the execution of a deed with general warranty to the board of justices for the tract of ten acres of land as before referred to, the said Samuel Sargeant having been chosen their clerk by the board of justices, entered upon the record their acceptance of the title-bonds given by himself and others in his own handwriting. Samuel Sargeant having died before the execution of any deed either by the obligors in the joint and several bond,
or by Sargeant alone, in pursuance of his separate obligation, proceedings were instituted at the November term, 182?, of the Circuit Court of the county of Tippecanoe, for the appointment of a commissioner, for the purpose of conveying'to the board of justices the title and interest held by Samuel Sargeant in his ■lifetime in the lots and parcels of land mentioned in the joint and several bond of Sargeant and others, and in the ten acres of land mentioned in the separate title-bond executed by Sargeant. The Circuit Court appointed Richard Johnson a commissioner, in conformity with the application, and this commissioner, conjointly with' all the obligors except Sargeant, executed to the board of justices a deed with general warranty for the lands mentioned in the joint and several bond, and a separate deed for the ten acres of land described in the bond given by Sargeant individually. • The proceedings of the Circuit Court of Tippecanoe, upon the petition of the board of justices, and the conveyances ordered by that court, took place in the years 1826 and 1827, and are of record.
In the year 1846, the lessors of the plaintiffs, representing themselves to be heirs at law of Samuel Sargeant, instituted' this their action of ejectment against the State Bank of Indiana, as the tenant in possession of lots No. 90 and 132, situated in the town of Lafayette. The said defendant also deducing title mediately from Samuel Sargeant, by purchase from the board of justices for the county of Tippecanoe, no question therefore is raised upon the validity of the title as originally existing in Samuel Sargeant.
At the trial, the lessors of the plaintiffs having introduced evidence to show the death of Samuel Sargeant on the 31st of July, 1826, and that the said lessors were his heirs at law, and evidence also of the value of the property in dispute, there rested then cause.
The defendant then offered in evidence the report of the commissioners appointed under the act of the legislature of January. 20th, 1826, to locate the seat of justice for the county of Tippecanoe ; the record of the appointment and qualification of the board of justices for the said county in July, 1826 ; the delivery to them and their acceptance of the title-bonds from the locating commissioners; their petition to the Circuit Court in order to obtain a conveyance of the lands mentioned in the title-bonds; the record of the proceedings of the Circuit Court of Tippecanoe upon the petition of the board of justices, and the conveyances to them made in pursuance of the judgment of that court, as comprised in the foregoing statement of facts. Upon the evidence thus submitted the jury found a verdict for the defendant.
The questions presented for our consideration by this record arise upon exceptions to the rulings of the court refusing certain instructions asked by the plaintiffs with regard to the evidence adduced by the defendant, and in charging the - jury upon the law applicable to that evidence as expounded by the. court. Thus the plaintiffs prayed the court to instruct the jury,— 1, That the title-bonds given in evidence by the defendant were void as against Samuel Sárgeant and his heirs for want of an obligee in existence capable of being contracted with at the time of the delivery of these bonds.
2. That the title-bonds are a nullity as against the said Sargeant and his heirs.
3. That the record and proceedings of thé Tippecanoe Circuit Court arid the commissioners’ deed in pursuance thereof are wholly void, and did not divest the title of Samuel Sargeant’s heirs.
4. That the certified copy of the notice and proof of publication' given in evidence by the plaintiffs, is a part of the record of the proceedings of the Tippecanoe Circuit Court, and as such, may explain and qualify the statement in the record, that proof was made that “ due and legal notice
”
had been given.
These several instructions the court refused to give, but charged the jury that the said record of Tippecanoe Circuit Court was not void, and that the proof produced and given- in evidence as aforesaid by the defendant was competent to prove a dedication to ppblic use, and the title of the premises in controversy out of the lessors of the plaintiffs, it was agreed by the parties in this case that the printed statutes of Indiana, so far as they are applicable to the case, should be deemed and taken as parts of the record in -this cause, and be so considered by this court.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mr. Justice DANIEL
delivered the opinion of the court.
The facts upon which this case is founded are' to the effect following. The legislature of Indiana, having by a law bearing date on the 20th January, 1826, laid off and established the county of Tippecanoe in that State; by the same act appointed four commissioners for the purpose of selecting and establishing a seat of justice for the county thus created, in conformity with the provision. of another statute of the State, passed on the 14th of January, 1824, entitled “ An act establishing seats of justice in new counties,.” and with the provisions of other acts amend- ' atory of the law last mentioned. Pending the investigation of the commissioners who took upon themselves the fulfilment of the duties prescribed by the statutes above mentioned, proffers were.made to them by various persons, proprietors of land in ■and adjacent to the town of .Lafayette, of certain lots and parcels of land as donations to the county of Tippecanoe, and amongst these proffers was that of the land involved in this suit, then held by.Samuel Sargeant, from whom the lessors of the plaintiffs deduce their title. The commissioners having accepted the donations offered as above mentioned, and selected the town of Lafayette as the seat of justice for the county of Tippecanoe, took from the»several donors their joint and several title-bond, dated May 4th, 1826, in the penalty of ten thousand dollars payable to the board of justices of the county to be thereafter organized, with condition that these obligors should convey by deed with general warranty to the board of justices, on the 1st day of October, 1826, the lots and parcels of land contained in their respective donations within the town of Lafayette, and took also the separate bond of Samuel Sargeant, conditioned to convey at the same period, by a like deed to the board of justices, another parcel of land of ten acres, adjoining the town, as in the conditions annexed to those bonds set forth. The board of justices appointed by the Governor of Indiana for the county of Tippecanoe, was organized on the 8th day of July, 1826, and on that day received the report .of the commissioners appointed by law to select the’seat of justice for the county of Tippecanoe, and at the same time received and accepted the joint and several ■obligation of Samuel Sargeant and others above mentioned; and also the separate bond of Samuel Sargeant, conditioned for the execution of a deed with general warranty to the board of justices for the tract of ten acres of land as before referred to, the said Samuel Sargeant having been chosen their clerk by the board of justices, entered upon the record their acceptance of the title-bonds given by himself and others in his own handwriting. Samuel Sargeant having died before the execution of any deed either by the obligors in the joint and several bond,
or by Sargeant alone, in pursuance of his separate obligation, proceedings were instituted at the November term, 182?, of the Circuit Court of the county of Tippecanoe, for the appointment of a commissioner, for the purpose of conveying'to the board of justices the title and interest held by Samuel Sargeant in his ■lifetime in the lots and parcels of land mentioned in the joint and several bond of Sargeant and others, and in the ten acres of land mentioned in the separate title-bond executed by Sargeant. The Circuit Court appointed Richard Johnson a commissioner, in conformity with the application, and this commissioner, conjointly with' all the obligors except Sargeant, executed to the board of justices a deed with general warranty for the lands mentioned in the joint and several bond, and a separate deed for the ten acres of land described in the bond given by Sargeant individually. • The proceedings of the Circuit Court of Tippecanoe, upon the petition of the board of justices, and the conveyances ordered by that court, took place in the years 1826 and 1827, and are of record.
In the year 1846, the lessors of the plaintiffs, representing themselves to be heirs at law of Samuel Sargeant, instituted' this their action of ejectment against the State Bank of Indiana, as the tenant in possession of lots No. 90 and 132, situated in the town of Lafayette. The said defendant also deducing title mediately from Samuel Sargeant, by purchase from the board of justices for the county of Tippecanoe, no question therefore is raised upon the validity of the title as originally existing in Samuel Sargeant.
At the trial, the lessors of the plaintiffs having introduced evidence to show the death of Samuel Sargeant on the 31st of July, 1826, and that the said lessors were his heirs at law, and evidence also of the value of the property in dispute, there rested then cause.
The defendant then offered in evidence the report of the commissioners appointed under the act of the legislature of January. 20th, 1826, to locate the seat of justice for the county of Tippecanoe ; the record of the appointment and qualification of the board of justices for the said county in July, 1826 ; the delivery to them and their acceptance of the title-bonds from the locating commissioners; their petition to the Circuit Court in order to obtain a conveyance of the lands mentioned in the title-bonds; the record of the proceedings of the Circuit Court of Tippecanoe upon the petition of the board of justices, and the conveyances to them made in pursuance of the judgment of that court, as comprised in the foregoing statement of facts. Upon the evidence thus submitted the jury found a verdict for the defendant.
The questions presented for our consideration by this record arise upon exceptions to the rulings of the court refusing certain instructions asked by the plaintiffs with regard to the evidence adduced by the defendant, and in charging the - jury upon the law applicable to that evidence as expounded by the. court. Thus the plaintiffs prayed the court to instruct the jury,— 1, That the title-bonds given in evidence by the defendant were void as against Samuel Sárgeant and his heirs for want of an obligee in existence capable of being contracted with at the time of the delivery of these bonds.
2. That the title-bonds are a nullity as against the said Sargeant and his heirs.
3. That the record and proceedings of thé Tippecanoe Circuit Court arid the commissioners’ deed in pursuance thereof are wholly void, and did not divest the title of Samuel Sargeant’s heirs.
4. That the certified copy of the notice and proof of publication' given in evidence by the plaintiffs, is a part of the record of the proceedings of the Tippecanoe Circuit Court, and as such, may explain and qualify the statement in the record, that proof was made that “ due and legal notice
”
had been given.
These several instructions the court refused to give, but charged the jury that the said record of Tippecanoe Circuit Court was not void, and that the proof produced and given- in evidence as aforesaid by the defendant was competent to prove a dedication to ppblic use, and the title of the premises in controversy out of the lessors of the plaintiffs, it was agreed by the parties in this case that the printed statutes of Indiana, so far as they are applicable to the case, should be deemed and taken as parts of the record in -this cause, and be so considered by this court.
In considering the three first charges asked for by the plaintiffs, this court can perceive no essential difference between them, but regards them as resolving themselves into the single objection of the want of an obligee or grantee capable of receiving any legal rights from the acts of Samuel Sargeant; for it follows necessarily that if any legal or equitable rights were invested or transferred by the title-bonds delivered by Sargeant in his lifetime to the commissioners, such rights could not remain in his heirs. The fourth charge required of the court presents quite a different question, and one going rather to the mode or form by which the title to the property has been transferred or ratified, than to the foundation of the right or title itself.
Although, if tested by the rules of law applicable to conveyances of real property, bonds like those executed and delivered by Samuel Sargeant in his lifetime could not confer a legal title, yet if adduced in support of a possession of twenty years,
held as in this instance, in pursuance of the express condition of those bonds, they would seem to corroborate such possession against an action founded upon the mere right of entry in the obligor or his heirs.
But these bonds should not be judged of by the strict rules of the common law, nor by the general principles applicable to uses and trusts in the conveyance of legal titles, but should be interpreted according to the local policy of the community which called them into existence, and which has defined both their objects and effects. Whatever these bonds were designed to be,— whatever purposes they were, by the local policy and laws of Indiana, intended to accomplish in respect to the makers thereof, or the beneficiaries therein named, this court should endeavor to effectuate.
By the general law of Indiana, approved January 14th, 1824, entitled “An act to establish the seats of justice in new counties,” it is provided in section first, “ that whenever any new county shall be laid off, five commissioners shall be appointed, whose duty it shall be to locate the seat of justice in such new county, to receive donations in land, and to take bond or bonds of any person proposing to give any such lands, payable to the board of county commissioners and their successors in office, and conditioned for the -conveyance of such tract or tracts of land so given or sold to such person as the county commissioners shall appoint to receive the same, which bond or bonds the said commissioners shall deliver to the county commissioners, together with a plain and correct report of their proceedings, containing a particular description of the lands so selected for the county seat.” By section fourth of the same act, it is declared “ that the county commissioners, so soon as the report of the locating commissioners is received, shall appoint a county agent, who shall receive deeds for such donated lands, and lay them off into lots,” &c. The act- of the Indiana legislature creating the county of Tippecanoe, passed January 20th, 1826, by section seventh, so far alters the general law of 1824, for the establishment of new counties, as to substitute a board of five justices of the peace, who shall constitute a board for transacting all other county business, as well as the duties theretofore devolving on the board of county commissioners in organizing a new county. This statute was to take effect on the 1st of March, 1826, and, by its second section, the board of commissioners were appointed by name for the purpose of fixing a permanent seat of justice for the county on the first Monday in May, 1826. The election or appointment of the board of justices for the county of Tippecanoe was, by the proclamation of the governor, to take effect not until the day of June following. The grant?
or donations to the locating commissioners having been authorized by law from the first Monday in May, 1826, and the grantees or ultimate beneficiaries, viz., the board of justices, not being chosen or their election authorized until after the day of June, 1826, if the objection alleged to the donations made or received by the locating commissioners, viz., the absence of a competent obligee or grantee, be sustained, then the whole legislation of the State upon this subject, and the obvious purposes of that legislation, must be defeated. Such a result, however, can hardly be reconciled with either the provisions or the purposes 6f the legislation of Indiana in reference-to this subject ;■ for by the general law of that Stat'e, approved January 14th, 1824, regulating .the establishment of new counties, we find it provided that the commissioners appointed to locate the seat of justice in a new county, and to receive the donations and to take the bonds ‘ mentioned in that law, are required, together with their report, to deliver said title-bonds to the county commissioners. This delivery, therefore, of the bonds so taken, must have been by this general provision intended to refer .to some period after these county commissioners or board of justices had come into existence. "We think-there can be no question as to the power of the State to create or authorize a contract which should operate in this mode.
The acts of the board of commissioners for selecting the county seat, those of the board of county justices, and of the donors of lands "to the county, all conform to this construction. Thus in the case before us, the title-bonds were taken by the former board, were by them subsequently, together with their report, delivered to the board of justices; and Samuel Sargeant, who had previously deposited the title-bonds executed by himself with the former board, and who had been subsequently appointed the clerk of the county justices, in his character of clerk, certifies the record of these proceedings. We think, therefore, that the Circuit Court for the District of Indiana properly refused to pronounce the bonds executed by Samuel Sargeant, and the proceedings of the board of commissioners and of the board of justices void, and correctly allowed them to be given to the jury as competent evidence .to be weighed by them in expounding the provisions of the statutes of Indiana above referred to.
Should it be conceded that the execution of the title-bonds by Samuel Sargeant in his lifetime, and the proceedings on the part of the board of commissioners and of the board of justices did not, under the statutes of Indiana, confer a legal title- on the; county, or clearly divest the title of Sergeant; yet, these acts standing alone and unconnected with the" proceedings of the Circuit Court of -Tippecanoe, show an equity on the part of the
county which clearly authorized them to call for the legal title from Sargeant. They show a written contract formally entered into and solemnly'recognized by him, and a fair equivalent or consideration for that contract, in the enhanced value of property arising from the establishment of the seat of justice, forming ah obligation from which neither Sargeant nor his heirs could withdraw without the perpetration of a gross fraud.
This brings us to a consideration of the fourth charge- asked of the Circuit Court in the trial below, and of the decision of ^the court thereupon, involving the regularity of the proceedings \t the suit of the county justices in the Circuit Court of Tippecanoe, in order to perfect their title stipulated for in the bonds executed by Samuel Sargeant. The court was requested by the proposed charge to say to the jury, that a certified copy of a notice and proof of publication offered in evidence by the plaintiffs, were a part of the record of the proceedings of the Tippecanoe Circuit Court, and, as such, might explain and qualify the statement of the record itself, that proof was made that
“
due and legal notices had been given,” which charge the court refused to give, but charged the jury that the said record of the Tippecanoe' Circuit Court is not void, and that the above proof, so produced and given in evidence by the said defendant, is competent evidence to show a dedication to public use, and the title of the premises out of the lessors of the plaintiffs.
Of the correctness of the Circuit Court in refusing this last charge, we entertain no doubt whatever. With a view of determining the propriety of this rejection by the Circuit Court, it may be proper here to refer to an act of the legislature of the State of Indiana, approved on the 20th of January, 1826, entitled
“
An act amendatory of the law for the better advancement of justice,” (under which statute the decision of the Circuit Court of Tippecanoe, impugned by the plaintiffs below, was made.) By the tenth section of this statute it is provided, “ that whenever any person or persons who shall have executed, or hereafter shall execute his or their obligation for the conveyance of any real estate to any person or persons, body politic or corporate, shall die intestate or without having made the necessary provisions by will for the conveyance of such estate, it shall be lawful for the obligee or obligees in such bonds, or his or their assignees, to apply to the Circuit Court of the county in which such real estate lies, to appoint a commissioner to convey the same in conformity with the conditions of the said obligation, by a deed to be by such commissioner, executed, of the same tenor and effect as the deceased obligor was bound to make in his lifetime; provided the- person or persons making such application as aforesaid, shall first give four weeks personal notice to
the heir or heirs of such obligor or obligors if residents of the State, and if non-residents, then three months notice of such application, by advertising the same three weeks successively in the nearest public newspaper to which the said real estate is situate — and the commissioner shall,” &c., &c.
Under the authority of the section just quoted, application in the name and on behalf of the county of Tippecanoe was made by petition to the judges of the Circuit Court of that county, for the.appointment of a commissioner to convey the lands mentioned in the title-bonds executed by Sargeant, and which he had failed to convey in conformity with those obligations. In setting forth the action of the court upon this petition, the record contains the following statement: “ Came into court Peter Hughes, agent, for the county of Tippecanoe by his attorneys, and moves the court now here to appoint a commissioner to convey real estate under and in conformity to a title-bond given by,Samuel Sargeant, deceased, and others therein named in his lifetime, to the board of justices of Tippecanoe county and their successors in office, which bond he now here files, for .the conveyance of certain town lots in the. town of Lafayette in the said bond mentioned and numbered.- Also files a bond given by-the said Samuel Sargeant deceased, by himself, for the conveyance of ten acres of land east , and adjoining the town of Lafayette, to the board of justices of the county and their successors in office, and it appearing, to the court now here, that proper and legal notices have been given of this motion, it is by the court now here ordered, that Richard Johnson be appointed commissioner to convey by good and sufficient deed unto the board of justices of Tippecanoe county and their successors in office, the said lots and parcels of ground, in pursuance of the aforesaid bonds in fee-simple, for and on behalf of the heirs of Samuel Sargeant, deceased.” It is this record of the decision of the Circuit Court of Tippecanoe county, and particularly that portion of it which states that the decision was pronounced after proper and legal notices had been given to the heirs of Samuel Sargeant, that the plaintiffs asked of the court to charge was irregular and void, upon the strength of a paper purporting to be a notice which they urged the court to consider as a part of the record of the proceedings of the Tippecanoe Circuit Court, and as such, explaining and qualifying the statement in that record, that proof was made to the court of due and legal notice to the heirs of Samuel Sargeant.
With respect to the propriety and regularity of this application to the.Circuit Court, we would remark in the first place, that the mere fact of a paper being found amongst the files of a cause, does riot of itself constitute it a part of the record of the^
cause. In order to render it a part of the record it should form some part of the pleadings in the cause, or be brought under and ingrafted upon the action of the court by some motion from the parties. Without this, such a paper can no more be a portion of the record than would the knowledge of facts on the part of a witness, who had been summoned and not examined, or the oral testimony given to a jury, and not noted by exception or otherwise. There is nothing in the record of the Circuit Court of Tippecanoe to show that the paper on which this fourth charge asked for by the plaintiffs is founded, was ever brought to the notice of the court last mentioned. The real veritable record informs us, that legal and sufficient notice was given to the heirs of Samuel Sargeant, but whether by this paper or' in what other mode (except that it was legal and sufficient) we are not told, and are not at liberty in this case to indulge in inferences against the verity of the record. It is a principle well settled, too, in judicial proceedings, that whatever may be the powers of a superior court, in the exercise of regular appellate jurisdiction, to examine the acts of an inferior court, the proceedings of a court of general and competent jurisdiction cannot be properly impeached and reexamined collaterally by a distinct tribunal, one not acting in the exercise of appellate power. To permit the converse of this principle in practice, would unsettle nine tenths of the rights and titles in any community, and lead to infinite confusion and wrong. In support of a principle so obvious and of such universal acceptation as is that just above stated, a recurrence to cases would seem to be wholly unnecessary. We will mention, however, one in. this court, which, from its direct appositeness to the question now under consideration, may be regarded as conclusive. The case alluded to- is that of Grignon’s lessee
v.
Astor. 2 Howard, 319. This was ah action of ejectment brought by the heirs of a decedent to recover lands which had been sold by the personal representative, who, by the law of Michigan, was, in the event of a deficiency of the personal assets to pay debts, authorized to sell the real estate, upon a license granted him to effect such sale, but to be obtained only upon proofs prescribed by the statute to be made before the court by which the license to the administrator was to be granted. The objection to the title of the purchaser was, that by the record of the court granting the license to the administrator to sell, it was apparent that the prescribed evidences of deficiency of the personal assets had not been adduced, and that the court had therefore exceeded the powers with which it was clothed by the statute. The language of the record is as follows : (t The petition of Paul Grignon, administrator on the estate of Pierre Grignon, late of thé county of Brown, deceased,
was filed, praying for an order from the court • to authorize him to dispose of the real estate of the said Pierre. In consideration of the facts alleged in said petition* and for . divers other good and sufficient reasons, it is ordered, that he be empowered as aforesaid.”
In overruling the objection made to the title derived from the personal representative, this court said, p. 339 : “
The
record of the County Court shows that there was a petition representing some facts by the administrator who prayed for an order of sale; and the court took those facts into consideration, and for these and divers other good reasons, ordered that he be empowered to sell.” Again this court say, p, 340: “After the court has passed on the representation of the administrator, the law' presumes that it was accompanied by the certificate of the judge of probate, as that was a requisite to the action of the court. Their order of sale was evidence of that or any other fact which was necessary to give them the power to make it; and the same remark applies to the order to give notice to the . parties. This is a familiar principle in ordinary adversary actions, in which it is presumed ifter verdict, that the plaintiff has proved every fact which is indispensable to his recovery, though no evidence appears on the record to show it; and the principle is of more universal application in proceedings
in rem
after a final decree by a court of competent jurisdiction over the subject-matter.” Again say the court, “ The record is absolute verity, to contradict which, there can be no averment or evidence; the court having power to make the decree, it can be impeached only by fraud in the party obtaining it.” Several decisions by this court upon this particular point will be found cited in the opinion above quoted as delivered by the late Justice Baldwin, who concludes that opinion with the following striking and cogent observations: “We do not,” said that learned judge (alluding particularly to the case of Vorhees
v.
The Bank of the United States, 10 Pet. 473,) “ think it necessary, now or hereafter, to retrace the reasons or the authorities on which the decisions of this court in that case and those which preceded it rested; they are founded on the oldest and most sacred principles of the common law. Time has consecrated them; the courts of the States have followed, and this court has never departed from them. They are rules of property on which the repose of the country depends; titles acquired under the proceedings of courts of competent jurisdiction must be deemed inviolable in collateral actions, or none can know what is his own; and there are no judicial sales around which greater sanctity ought to be placed, than those made of the estates of- decedents by order of those courts to whom the laws of the States confide full jurisdiction
over the subjects.” By the doctrine thus ruled the decision of the Circuit Court is fully .sustained,, and, upon a review of the whole case, it is the opinion of this court that the decision of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.
•Order.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said Circuit Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, affirmed, with costs.