Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

109

1. The penalty of the 50th section of
the collection law of 2d of March,
1799, which requires a permit for
the landing of goods imported, ap-
plies to goods the importation of
which is prohibited by law. Har-
ford v. United States,
2. British property found in the Uni-
ted States on land, at the com-
mencement of hostilities with
Great Britain, cannot be condemn-
ed as enemy's property without a
legislative act, authorizing its con-
fiscation. The act of the legisla-
ture, declaring war, is not such an
110
act. Brown v. U. States,
3. Timber, floated into a salt water
creek, where the tide ebbs and
flows, leaving the ends of the tim-
ber resting on the mud at low-wa-
ter, and prevented, by booms, from
floating away at high-water, is to
be considered as landed. Brown
v. United States,

110
4. After a declaration of war, an
American citizen cannot lawfully
send a vessel to the enemy's coun-
try to bring away his property.
The Rapid,

155

5. A vessel, owned by citizens of the
United States, on her voyage from
Naples to the United States hears
of the declaration of war between
the United States and Great Bri-
tain, and, having a British license
to carry her cargo to Great Bri-
tain, changes her course for that
country; is captured by the Bri-
tish, libelled and acquitted upon
her license; sells her cargo, pur-
chases a return cargo, sails for the
United States, and is captured by
an American cruizer; good prize.
The Alexander,
169

[blocks in formation]

The Aurora,
The Hiram,

181

203

444

8. The acceptance and use of an
enemy's license on a voyage to a
neutral port, prosecuted in fur-
therance of the enemy's avowed
objects, is illegal, and subjects ves-
sel and cargo to confiscation. The
Aurora,
203
9. It is not necessary, in order to
subject the property to condemna-
tion for sailing under an enemy's
license, that the person granting
the license should be duly autho-
rized to grant it, provided the
person receiving it takes it with
the expectation that it will protect
his property from the enemy. The
Aurora,

203
10. The case of a vessel and cargo,
belonging to a citizen of one belli-
gerent nation, captured on the
high seas by a cruizer of the other
belligerent, given to a neutral, and
by him brought into a port and li-
belled in a Court of his own coun-
try, between which and the nation
to which the vessel originally be-
longed war breaks out before final
adjudication, is a case of salvage;
one moiety adjudged to the libel-
lants and the other moiety to re-
main subject to the future order of
the Court below; and to be re-
stored to the original owner after
the termination of the war, unless
legislative provision should previ
ously be made for the confiscation
of enemy's property found in the
country at the declaration of war.
The act of bringing in the cargo,
although consisting of articles the
importation of which was prohi-

[blocks in formation]

12. Upon a shipment of goods to be
sold on joint account of the ship-
per and consignee, or of the ship-
per alone, at the option of the con-
signee, the right of property does
not vest in the consignee until he
has made his election. The Ve-
nus,

253

13. If two partners own jointly a
commercial house in New York,
and one of them obtain an Ameri-
can register for a ship, by swear-
ing that he, together with his part-
ner, of the city of New York, mer-
chant, are the only owners of the
vessel, when in fact his partner
was domiciled in England, the ves
sel is liable to forfeiture under the
act of congress of December 31st,
1792, Laws U. S. vol. 2, p. 133.
The Venus,
14. Goods purchased by British mer-
chants, before the war between
the United States and Great Bri-
tain, in pursuance of orders from
American citizens, and shipped to
the agent of the British merchants
in the United States (who was al-
so an American citizen) "on ac-
"count and risk of an American

[ocr errors]

254

citizen," (no circumstances of
fraud or unfairness appearing in
the transaction) were vested in
the American citizens at the time
of shipment, and were not liable to
condemnation, although the vessel
sailed from England after the de-
claration of war was known there.

But if goods be purchased as above,
although the accompanying in-

voices, bills of lading and letters
be addressed to the American citi-
zens for whom the purchases were
made, and all concur to show the
property to be in them, yet if these
documents be enclosed in a letter
from the shippers to their agent
in the United States, directing him
not to deliver the goods in a cer-
tain event, nor until he should have
received pay men in cash, the pro-
perty in the goods continued in the
shipper at the time of capture, and
they were liable to condemnation.
Goods, by the same ship, pur-
chased as above, and consigned to
the agent of the consignors, (being
an American citizen) in whose
name the bill of lading is made
out, but the bills of parcels and in-
voice in the name of the American
merchants for whom the pur-
chases were made; the shipment
also being expressed to be on their
account, although the goods are
spoken of in the letter of the con-
signors as British property; vest-
ed in the American merchants at
the time of shipment; and were
not liable to condemnation. The
circumstance that the goods con-
tinued, during the whole voyage,
at the risk of the shippers is im-
material. The Merrimack, 317
15. A British subject, naturalized in
the United States, went to Great
Britain in a time of peace for the
purpose of trade, but with the in-
tention to return to the United
States. He continued in Great
Britain a year after knowledge of
the war between Great Britain
and the United States, for the pur-
pose of winding up his business
but engaged in no new commercial
transactions with the enemy, and
actually returned to the United
States in a little more than a year
after knowledge of the war; yet
he was considered as an enemy
and his goods were condemned.
The Frances, Thompson's claim,
335

16. Goods, appearing by the ship's

[ocr errors]

papers to be a consignment from
alien enemies to American mer-
chants, were condemned in toto,
although further proof was offered
that American merchants were
jointly interested, and that they
had a lien upon the goods in con-
sequence of advances made by
them. Further proof on those
points refused The Frances.
Thompson's claim,
336
17. Where the affidavits produced
on the order for further proof are
positive, although their credibility
be impaired by the non-production
of letters mentioned therein, yet a
second order for further proof will
be allowed in the appellate Court.
The Frances. Graham's claim,

348

18. Goods shipped by a British mer
chant to an American house, (part-
ly in conformity with orders, and
partly without orders) who had an
option to accept or reject the
whole invoice in a limited time, re-
main the property of the shippers
until the election be made to ac-
cept them. The Frances. Dun-
ham and Randolph's claim, 354
19 An intention of a consignor of
goods to vest the right of property
in the consignee, is not sufficient
to effect such a change of property
until the goods are received by the
Consignee, or some evidence is
given of his agreement to take
them on his own account; until
that time, the goods are at the risk
of the shippers; and if they are
enemies, the goods, if captured,
are good prize. The result is the
same, although the consignee be
the agent of a third person who
had directed him to order the
goods, unless it appear that he did
actually order them. The Frances.
French's claim
359

20. The commercial domicil of a
merchant, at the time of the cap-
ture of his goods, determines the
character of hose goods. hostile or
neutral. The Frances. Gillespie's
claim,

363

382

21. Property engaged in an illicit in-
tercourse with the enemy, is to be
condemned to the captors—not to
the United States. A municipal
forfeiture under the laws of the
United States is absorbed in the
more general operation of the law
of war.
The prize act of 26th
June, 1812, operates as a grant
from the United States to the cap-
tors, of all property rightfully cap-
tured by commissioned privateers,
as prize of war. The Sally,
22. Further proof, inconsistent with
that already in the case, will not
be admitted. The Euphrates, 385
23. The forfeiture of gods, for vio-
lation of the non-intercourse act of
March 1st, 1809, takes place upon
the commission of the offence and
avoids a subsequent sale to an in-
nocent purchaser, although there
may have been a regular permit
for landing the goods, and although
the duties may have been paid.
United States v. 1960 bags of
coffee,

"

398
24 A forfeiture under the 3d section
of the act of 28th June, 1809, ch.
9. will over-reach a bona fide sale
to a purchaser for valuable consi-
deration without notice of the of-
fence. United States v. Brig
Mars,

417
25. No lien upon enemy's property,
by way of pledge for the payment
of purchase money, or otherwise,
is sufficient to defeat the rights of
the captors, in a prize Court, un-
less in very peculiar cases where
the lien is imposed by a general
law of the mercantile world, inde-
pendent of any contract between
the parties. The Frances. Ir-
vin's claim,

418

26. Where goods are sent upon the
account and risk of the shipper,
the delivery to the master is a de-
livery to him as agent of the ship-
per, not of the consignee; and it
is competent to the consignor at
any time before actual delivery to
the consignee, to countermand it,
and thus to prevent the consignee's

fien from attaching. The Frances.
Irvin's claim,
418
27. Under the 8th section of the
prize act of June 26th, 1812, the
president had authority to issue
the instructions of the 28th of Au-
gust, 1812. The Thomas Gib-
bons,
421
28. The commissions of the privateers
of the United States may be quali-
fied and restrained by the instruc-
tions of the president. The Tho-
mas Gibbons,
421

29. A shipment made, even after a
knowledge of the war, is to be con-
sidered as having been made in
consequence of the repeal of the
orders in council, if made within
so early a period thereafter as
would leave a reasonable presump-
tion that the knowledge of that
repeal would produce a suspension
of hostilities on the part of the
United States. The Thomas Ģib-
bons,
421
30. By the mere act of illicit inter-
course the property of a citizen is
not divested ipso facto; it is only
liable to be condemned as enemy
property, or as adhering to the
enemy, if rightfully captured
during the voyage. The Thomas

Gibbons,

421

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

34. Trading with the enemy is not
excused by the necessity of ob-
taining funds to pay the expenses
of the ship; nor by the opinion of
an American minister, expressed
to the master, that by undertaking
the voyage he would violate no
law of the United States. The
Joseph,
451
35. If an American vessel be cap-
tured on a circuitous voyage to the
United States; in the former part
of which voyage she has been guil-
ty of conduct subjecting her to
confiscation, although at the time
of capture she is committing no il-
legal act, she must be condemned..
The Joseph,
452

[ocr errors]

36. Where the termini of a voyage
are already fixed, the continuity
of such voyage cannot be broken
by a voluntary deviation of the
master for the purpose of carrying
on an intermediate trade. The
Joseph,

452

37. A capture as prize of war may
lawfully be made, within the ter-
ritorial limits of the United States
at any place below, low-water
mark. The Joseph,
452
38. Further proof will be allowed
on the part of the captors as to
the fact of capture. The Grotius

ALEXANDRIA.

456

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
« EelmineJätka »