페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

prohibiting the fitting out any
ship, &c. for t!e service of any
foreign prince, &c, to cruise
against the subjects, &c. of any
other foreign prince, &c. does
not apply to any new govern-
ment, unless it has been ackow-
ledged by the Uhited States, or
by the government of the coun-
try to which such new govern-
ment previously belonged. And
a plea setting up a forfeiture un-
der that statute in sitting out a
ship to cruise against such new
state, must aver such recognition,
or it is bad. Id. 328

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

. Decree in an

my master, will not preclude a
neutral claimant from farther
proof. Id. 48

. Prize practice of France as to

farther proof. Note, a 49
instance cause
affirmed with damages, at the
rate of 6 per centum per an-
num, on the amount of the ap-
praised value of the cargo, (the
same having been delivered to
the claimant on bail.) including
interest from the date of the de-
cree of condemnation in the dis-
trict court. The Diana, 58

. A witness offered to be examined

vara vace, in open court, in an
instance cause, ordered to be
examined out of court. The
Samuel, 77

. Decree of restitution affirmed in

this court, with a certificate of

10

11.

[blocks in formation]

Barker,
| 47
A conveyance by a plaintifi's les-
sor during the pendency of an ac-
tion of ejectinent, can only ope-
rate upon his reversionary inte-
rest, and cannot extinguish the
prior lease. If the lease expire
during the pendency of a suit, the
plaintiff cannot recover his term
at law, without having it en-
larged by the court, and can
proceed only for antecedent da-
mages. Robinson v. Campbell,
212. 323
Note on the effect of an outstand-
ing title in a third person, in eject-
ment. Note a, 224
Libel for a forfeiture of goods
imported into the United States,
and alleged to have been exported
from Bordeaur, in France, and
invoiced at a less sum than the
actual cost, at the place of erpor-
tation, contrary to the 66th scc.
tion of the collection law, ch.
133. It appeared that the goods
were originally shipped from
Liverpool, and were landed at
Bordeaux. Restitution decreed
upon the evidence as to the cost
of the goods at Bordeaur; the
form. of the libel excluding all
Inquiry as to their cost at Liver-
pool, the place where they were
originally shipped, and as to con-

below. Lanusse v.

78 12.

3.

. The captors are always compe-
. A blockade does not, according

[ocr errors][merged small]

tinuity of voyage. The United
States v. 150 Crates, 232
Where a neutral ship owner lends
his name to cover a fraud with
regard to the cargo, this circum-
stance will subject the ship to
condemnation. The Fortuna
236, 245
It is a relaxation of the rules of
the prize court, to allow time for
farther proof, in a case where
there has been a concealment of
material papers. Id. 245
This court has no jurisdiction'
under the 25th section of the ju-
diciary act of 1789, ch. 20, unless
the judgment or decree of the
state court be a final judgment
or decree. A judgment, revers-
ing that of an inserior court, and
awarding a renire facias de noro,
is not a final judginent. Houston
v. JMoore, 433
The captors are competent wit-
nesses upon an order for farther
proof, where the benefit of it is
extended to both parties. The
June, 435.444

tent witnesses, as to the circuin-
stances of the capture, whether it
be joint, collusive, or within neu-
tral territory. Id. 444
Irregularities on the part of the
captors, originating from mere
mistake, or negligence, which
work no irreparable mischief, and
are consistent with good faith,
will not forfeit their right of
prize. Isl. 448
Under the 6th section of the pa-
tent law of 1793, ch. 1,6. the
defendant pleaded the general
issue, and gave notice that he
would prove at the trial, that the
machine for the use of which,
without license, the suit was
brought, had been used previous
to the alleged invention of the
plaintiff, in several places which

19

20.

were specified in the notice, or
in some of them, “and also, at
sundry other places in Pennsyl-
vania, Maryland, and elsewhere
in the United States.” The de-
fendant, having given evidence
as to some of the places specifi-
ed, offered evidence as to others
not specified. Held, that this
evidence was admissible : but
that the powers of the court, in

such a case, are sufficient to pre-.

vent, and will be exercised to
prevent, the patentee from being
injured by surprise. Evans v. Ea.

fon, 454. 503
Testimony on the part of the
plair tiff, that the persons, of 4.

whose prior use of the machine
the defendant had given evi-
dence, had paid the plaintiff
for licences to use the machine,

ought not to be absolutely re-

jected, though entitled to very
little weight. Id. 505
The circuit courts have no pow-
er to set aside their decrees in
equity on motion, after the term
at which they are rendered. Ca-
meron v. M. Roberts, 591

See JURIsdiction.

See

PRESIDENT.
ADMIRALTY. 13.

PRIZE.

5.

1. A bill of lading consigning the 9.

may induce a suspicion that pa-
pers have been spoliated. But
even if it were proved that an
enemy master, carrying a cargo
chiefly hostile, had thrown pa-
pers overboard, a neutral claim-
ant, to whom no fraud is imputa-
ble, is not thereby precluded from
farther proof. Id 48

goods to a neutral, but unaccom-
panied by an invoice or letter of

advice, is not sufficient evidence 10.

to entitle the claimant to restitu-
tion ; but is sufficient to lay a
foundation for the introduction of
faither proof. The Friendschaft

14. 48
The fact of invoices and letters of

advice not being found on board, 11.

to modern usage, extend to a neu-
tral vessel found in port, nor
prevent her coming out with the
cargo' which was on board when
the blockade was instituted.
Olivera v. The Union Ins. Co.

194
Cases on the subject of licences
collected. INote a, 207
A question of proprietary interest
and concealinent of papers. Far-
ther proof ordered, open to both
parties. On the production of
farther proof by the claimant,
condemnation pronounced. The
Fortuna, 237
Where a neutral ship owner lends
his name to cover a fraud with
regard to the cargo, this circum-
stance will subject the ship to
condemnation. Id. 245
Relaxation of the rules of the
court in allowing farther proof in
a case of concealment of papers.
Ill. 245
A neutral cargo found on board
an armed enemy's vessel is not
liable to condemnation as prize
of war. The Atalanta, 409. 415
A question of proprietary inte-
rest. Farther proof ordered. Id.

409
It is not competent for a neutral
consul, without the special au-
thority of his government, to in-
terpose a claim on account of the
violation of the territorial juris-
diction of his country. The
Jinme, 435. 445
Quaere, Whether such a claim can

13.

be interposed, even by a public
minister, without the sanction of
the government in whose tribu-
nals the cause is pending P. Id.

446
A capture made within neutral
territory is, as between the bel-
ligerents, rightful ; and its validi-
ty can only be questioned by the
neutral state. Id. 447
If the captured ship commence
hostilities upon the captor with-
in neutral territory, she forfeits
the neutral protection, and the
capture is not an injury for which
redress can be sought from the
neutral sovereign. Id. 447

14. The district courts of the United

States have jurisdiction of ques-
tions of prize, and its incidents,
independent of the special pro-
visions of the prize act of the

26th June, 1812, ch. 430.
(CWII.) The Amiable Nancy,
5 16

15. On an illegal seizure, the original

wrong doers inay be made re-
sponsible beyond the loss actually
sustained, in a case of grose and
wanton outrage; but the owners
of the privateer, who are only
construsively liable, are not
bound to the extent of vindictive
damages. Il. 558

16. An item for loss by deterioration

of the cargo, not occasioned by
the improper conduct of the cap-
tors—rejected. Id. 559

17. The probable or possible profits

of an unfinished voyage aford no
rule to estimate the damages in
a case of marine trespass. Id.

560

An item for the ransom of the
vessel and cargo, which had been
subsequently seized by another
belligerent, as alleged for want
of papers, ( of which the vessel
had been deprived by the first
captors, rejected under the par-
ticular circumstances of the case.
Id. 561

See Domicil.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

License.
PiRAcy.

Practice, 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 15.
16, 17.

The prime cost or value of the

property lost, and, in case of in-
jury, the diminution in value by
reason of the injury, with inte-
rest thereon affords the true
meature for estinating damages
in such a case. Id.

SALvAge.
S

SALE.

In an action by the vendee for a
breach of the contract of sale by
the vendor in not delivering the
article, the measure of damages
is the price of the article at the
time of the breach of the con-
tract, and not at any subsequent
period. Shepherd v. Hampton,

200
Quere, How far this rule applies
to a case where advances of mo-
ney have been made by the pur-
chaser under the contract? Id.

200
One citizen of the United States
has no right to purchase of, or
sell to, another, a license or pass
from the public enemy, to be
used on board an American ves-
sel. Patton v. Nicholson, 201

SALWAGE.

560 M An American vessel was captured

by the enemy, and after condem-12. Law of Denmark and Sweden.

nation and sale to a sobject of

[ocr errors]

the enemy, was recaptured by 13. Recaptures from pirates. Id. 99.

an American privatecr—Held,

that the original owner was not SPECIFIC PERFORMANC E

[blocks in formation]

he 5th section of the prize act
of 1812. ch. 107. does not re-
peal any of the provisions of the
salvage act of the 3d March,
1800, ch. 14, but is merely af.
firinative of the pre-existing law

Id. 89

7. By our law the rule of reciproci-

ty prevails upon the recapture of
of the property of fictids. Id.
Q |

8. Note on the laws of the different

maritimecountries of Europe as
to recaptures and salvage, Note

0. 93
9. Law o' Great Britain. Id. 94
10. Law of France. Il. 95

11. Law of Spain, Portugal, and
97

Holland. Id.

See Chancery, 1.

STATUTES OF TENNESSEE.

2.

By the compact of 1802, settling
the boundary line between Vir-
ginia and Tennessee, and the
laws made in pursuance thereof,
it is declared that all claims and
titles to lands derived from Vir-
ginia, or North Carolina, or Ten-
nessee, which have fallen into
the respective states. shall re-
main as secure to the owners
thereof, as if derived from the
government within whose boun-
dary they have fallen, and shell
not be prejudiced or affected by
the establishment of the line.
Where the titles both of the
plaintiff and defendant in eject-
ment were derived under grant
from Virginia, to lands which
fell within the limits of Tennes-
see, it was held that a prior set-
tlement right thereto, which
would, in equity, give the party
a title, could not be asserted as
a sufficient title in an action of
ejectment brought in the circuit
court of Tennessee. Robinson v.
Campbell, * 12
Although the state courts of Ten-
nessee have decided, that’ under
their statutes, (declaring an elder
grant founded cn a jation entry
to be void.) a junior patent
founded on a prior entry shall
prevail at law against a senior
patent sounded on a junior en-
try; this doctrine has never been
extended beyond cases within
the express purview of the sta-
tute of Tennessee, and could
not apply to titles deriving all

« 이전계속 »