The United States v. R. T. Hooe and Others

The attorney general * opened the cause on the part of *320 the United States, and was going on to shew that the deed was fraudulent, as to creditors, upon general principles of law, (a ground not taken in the court below) when he was stopped by an enquiry from the court, whether there was any provision in the act concerning the district of Columbia, by which the case was taken out of the operation of the nineteenth section of the judiciary act of 1789, which required a statement of the facts to accompany the record. Upon recurring to the act of congress, 27th February 1801, concerning the district of Columbia, ch. 86. §. 8, it was found that writs of error were to “ be prosecuted in the same manner, under the same regu- “ lations, and the same proceedings shall be had therein, “ as is, or shall be provided in the case of writs of error on “ judgments, or appeals upon orders or decrees rendered “ in the circuit court of the United States.” Upon which the court said, that the decisions on the act of 1789, §. 19, had been, that unless a statement of facts appeared upon the record, they could not say there was error. 3. Dallas, 337, Jennings v. Brig Perseverance. It is true that the act of February 13. 1801. chap. 75. §. 33, remedied the evil, but that act was repealed in 1802, so that the law now stands as it did before the act of 1801. And the act concerning the district of Columbia, by saying that writs of error shall be prosecuted in the same manner as is, or shall be, provided, &c. places this case under the law of 1789. Whatever might be the present opinion of the court if this were the first time of being called upon to give a construction to that clause of the act, yet the question has been solemnly settled. One legislature has taken cognizance of the construction given by the court, and has provided for the case, but another legislature has repealed that provision and thereby given a subsequent legislative construction, or at least shewn such a legislative acquiescence under the construction which this court formerly gave to the act, as is now conclusive. At the request of the attorney general, the writ of error was dismissed. † Footnotes [*] Mr. Lincoln. [†] Congress being in session at this time, an act was introduced and passed, containing a clause similar to the 33d section of the act of 13th February, 1801, respecting writs of error and appeals in cases of equity and maritime jurisdiction, &c. Laws of U. S. vol. 6. p, 315, c. 93, 3d March, 1803.