ENGLISH AND AMERICAN AUTHORITIES. 437 proofs; or where the claimant of any property shall satisfy the court that such property has a peculiar and intrinsic value to him, independent of its market value. Besides the authorities already referred to, a few others may be cited: such as in England, The Saracen, 10 Jur. 398, and 2 W. Rob. 451; The Seringapatam, ibid. 1065, and 3 W. Rob. 38; The Copenhagen, 3 Ch. Rob. 178; The Peggy, 4 ibid. 304; The Betsey, 5 ibid. 295; The Jonge Bastiaan, ibid. 322; The Partridge, 1 Hagg. 82; The Harriett, 1 W. Rob. 192; The Tamarac, Lush. 28; The Corner, Br. & Lush. 161; The Flora, 1 Ad. & Eccl. Rep. 45; and in the United States, The Lively, 1 Gall. 315; The Ship Euphrates, ibid. 451; The Struggle, ibid. 476; The Grotius, ibid. 503; The Gran Para, 10 Wheat. 497; The Palmyra, 12 ibid. 1; and Lane v. Townsend, Ware, 286. On three contingencies only, then, in the United States, are the Federal courts permitted to exercise judicial discretion, in delivering prize goods on bail. By § 26, U. S. Prize Act 1864, already referred to, they are thus expressly prohibited: "No prize property shall be delivered to the claimants on stipulation, deposit, or other security," except as before stated. And this constitutes the general rule; while the permitted instances constitute the exceptions to that general rule. 37* MISCELLANEOUS AND CONCLUDING CHAPTER OF PART I. THE obvious aim and real purpose of the preceding chapters have been utility. An attempt has been made to collect and conveniently arrange in chapters the principal authorities applicable to the subjects of those chapters, so that the student may readily consult in one volume the leading decisions and doctrines touching a particular subject by turning to a single chapter. With this view, the author has successively treated of the various subjects of maritime jurisprudence, admiralty jurisdiction, the accepted meaning of admiralty and maritime as terms, collision, salvage, general average, bottomry, necessaries, master's power of sale, mariner's wages, witnesses, pilotage, recoupment, freight, liens, towage, lis pendens, whaling, causes of possession and restraint by co-owners, and bail; and it now remains to conclude abruptly what constituted the principal part of the original design of this treatise. In its execution there may appear to be omissions and imperfections, of which none can be more conscious than the author. But such omissions can only be supplied in a future edition, if called for, should Providence spare me life, health, and ability to superintend such publication. In setting forth the principles of maritime law, by which the rights of merchants and privileges of mariners are upheld and vindicated in admiralty courts, some minor omissions have seemingly occurred, which, though elementary law, may properly enough find a place in this closing chapter. A RECEIPT IN FULL, fairly made, intelligently signed, and mutually understood by the parties thereto, ought in law to operate as a final release and full discharge from future liability to claims for debts, injuries, or torts. So, indeed, it would operate, both legally and equitably, if it were thus obtained; but not if otherwise obtained. Such a receipt, procured from a mariner under duress, or any species of fraud or compulsion, may be inquired into. Thus, in 1839, a receipt for $5, purporting to be in full for wages of five times that amount, beside acquitting the master and officers of all claims for torts was held by Judge Ware to be nugatory, and no estoppel, though under seal. The David Pratt, Ware, 495. In 1855, another like receipt for $500 was held by Judge Sprague to be equally unavailing and inoperative. Payne v. Allen, 1 Spr. 304. Seamen are not bound by improper deductions made at the time of payment of wages. Knight v. Parsons, ibid. 279. But by a fair composition, intelligibly presented, and well understood at the time by the mariner, he is legally bound. 1 Pet. C. C. 182, Thompson v. Faussat et al. In the Admiralty, these receipts are never conclusive, but always open to explanation, and upon satisfactory evidence, may be restrained in their operation. 3 Mason, 541, Harden v. Gordon. Generally, receipts to release torts without consideration, given on payment of wages merely, will only release the wages actually paid. 2 Sum. 1, Thomas v. Lane. FOR SHORT ALLOWANCE, there is a statute remedy, securing to the suffering sailor suitable redress. The Mary, Ware, 454; The Mary Paulina, 1 Spr. 45; Foster v. Sampson, ibid. 182; Collins v. Wheeler, ibid. 188. DROITS IN ADMIRALTY are peculiar to English law. Being the lawless depredations of non-commissioned cruisers, and failing to reach the rank of lawful prize, they become forfeited as droits or perquisites of the Admiralty. The Aquilla, 1 Ch. Rob. 32; and Property Derelict, Hagg. 383.1 In the United States, such seizures belong to the Government; and as such, are condemned jure reipublicæ, and not as perquisites of the Admiralty. At this stage of the present undertaking, it is proposed to pass from the first part, or instance side of the Admiralty Court, to the second part, or prize side of that court. The labor is easy and the transition grateful. Without aspiring to the claims or skill of a graceful authorship, it is hoped the treatise, when completed, may result in an unpretentious specimen of at least useful authorship. The whole commercial world is deeply interested in the capture, release, or restitution of prizes of war. The future discussion is to affect States as well as citizens, and may therefore deepen in interest. 1 The Joseph, 1 Gall. 558. |