Page images

of ordinary, on any other person;
and if, during such capability of
the executor, the ordinary grant
administration, either absolute or
temporary, to another person, that
grant is absolutely void. Griffith
v. Frazier,



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, 109
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

Brown v. U. States, 110
3. Timber, floated into a salt-water

creek, where the tide ebbs and
flows, leaving the ends of the tim-
ber resting ou the mud at low-wa-
ter, and prevented, by booms, from
floating away at high-waier, is to
be considered as landed. Brown
v. United States,

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 Rapiid,
5. A vessel, owned by citizens of the

United States, on her voyage from
Naples to the United States hears
of the declaracion 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,


6. It is a good capture although only

a prize-master be put on board.
The Alexander,

7. The sailing, on a voyage, under

the license and passport of protec-
tion of the enemy, in furtherance
of his views or interests, consti-
tutes such an act of illegality as
subjects the ship and cargo to con-
fiscation as prize of war. The

The Aurora,

The Hiram,

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

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

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 previo
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-


[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]


[ocr errors]

bited by law, was not, under such voices, bills of lading and letters
circumstances, a cause for for be addressed to the American citi-
feiture of the property. The Ad zens for whom the purchases were


made, and all concur to show the
11. If a citizen of the United States

property to be in them, yet if these
establish his domicil in a foreign documents be .enclosed in a letter
country, between which and the from the shippers to their agent
United States hostilities alterwards in the United States, directing him
break out, any property, shipped not to deliver the goods in a cer-
by such citizen before knowledge tain event, nor until he should have
of the war, and captured by an received paymen in cash, the pro-
American cruizer after the decia. perty in the goods coștinued in the
ration of war, is good prize. The shipper at the time of capture, and

253 they were liable to condemnation.
12. Upon a shipment of goods to be

Goods, by the same ship, pur-
sold on joint account of the ship-

chased as above, and consigned to ,
per and consignee, or of the ship-
per alone, at the option of the con-

the agent of the consignors, (being
signee, the right of property does

an American citizen) in whose

name the bill of lading is made
not vest in the consignee until he
has made his election. The Ve-

out, but the bills of parcels and in-

voice in the name of the American

merchants. for whom the pur-
13. If two partner's own jointly a

chases were made ; the shipment
commercial house in New York,
and one of them obtain an Ameri-

also being expressed to be on their
can register for a ship, by swear-

account, although the goods are
ing that he, together with his part-

spoken of in the letter of the con-
ner, of the city of New York, mer-

signors as British property ; vest-

ed in the American merchants at
chant, are the only owners of the
vessel, when in fact his partner

the time of shipment; and were

not liable to condemnation. The
was domiciled in England, the ves

circumstance that the goods 'con-
sel is liable to forfeiture under the

tinued, during the whole voyage,
act of congress of December 318t,
1792, Laws U. S. vol. 2, p. 133.

at the risk of the shippers is im-

material. The Merrimack, 317.
The Venus,

14. Goods purchased by British mer-

15. A British subject, naturalized in

the United States, went to Great
chants, before the war between

Britain in a time of peace for the
the United States and Great Bri.

purpose of trade, but with the in-
tain, in pursuance of orders from

tention to return to the United
American citizens, and shipped to

States. He continued in Great
the agent of the British merchants
in the United States (who was ale i

Britain a year after knowledge of

the war between Great Britain
so an American citizen) "on ac-

and the United States, for the pur-
“ count and risk of an American
citizen," (no circumstances of

pose of winding up his business ;
fraud or unfairness appearing in

but engaged in no new commercial

transactions with the enemy, and
the transaction) were vested in
the American citizens at the time

actually returned to the United

States in a little more than a year
of shipment, and were not liable to

after knowledge of the war; yet
condemnation, although the vessel

he was considered as an enemy
sailed from England after the de-

and his goods were condemned.
claration of war was known there.

The Frances, Thompson's claim,
But if goods be purchased as above,

although the accompanying in 16. Goods, appearing by the ship's

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

partly without orders) who had an

papers to be a consignment from 21. Property engaged in an illicit in-
alien enemies to American mer tercourse with the enemy, is to be
charts, were condemned in toto, condemned to the captors-not to
although further proof was offered the United States, A municipal
that American merchants were forfeiture under the laws of the
jointly interested, and that they United States is absorbed in the
had a lien upon the goods in con more general operation of the law
sequence of advances made by of war. The prize act of 26th
them. Further proof on those June, 1812, operates as a grant
points refused

The Frances. from the United States to the cap-
Thompson's claim,

336 tors, of all property rightfully cap-
17. Where the affidavits produced tured by commissioned privateers,

on the order for further proof are as prize of war. The Sally, 382
positive, although their credibility 22. Further proof, inconsistent with
be impaired by the non-production that already in the case, will not
of letters mentioned therein, yet a 'be admitted. The Euphrates, 385
second order for further proof will 23. The forfeiture of gods, for vio-
be allowed in the appellate Court. lation of the non-intercourse act of
The Frances. Graham's claim, March 1st, 1809, takes place upon

348 the commission of the offence and
18. Gnods shipped by a British mer. avoids a subsequent sale to an in-

chant to an American house, (part nocent purchaser, although there
ly in conformity with orders, and may have been a regular permit

for landing the goods, and although
option accept or reject the the duties may have been paid.
whole invoice in a limited time, re. United States v. 1960 bags of
main the property of the shippers coffee,

until the elecijon be made to ac 24 A forfeiture under the 3d section
cept them. The Frances. Duri of the act of 28th June, 1809, ch.

ham and Randolph's claim, 354 9. will over-reach a bona fide sale
19 An intention of a consignor of to a purchaser for valuable consi,

goods to ves: the right of property deration without notice of the of-
in the consignee, is not sufficient


United States v. Brig
to eff ct such a change of property Mars,

until the goods are received by the 25. No lien upon enemy's property,
consignee, or some evidence is by way of pledge for the payment
given of his agreement to take of purchase money, or otherwise,
them on his own account; until is sufficient to defeat the rights of
that time, the goods are ai the risk the captors, in a prize Court, un-
of the shippers; and if they are less in very peculiar cases where
enemies, the goods, if captured, the lien is imposed by a general
are good prize. The result is the law of the mercantile world, inde-
same, although the consignee be pendent of any contract between
the agent of a third person who the parties. The Frances. Ir-
had directed him to order the vin's claim,

goods, unless it appear that he did 26. Where goods are sent upon the
actually order them. The Frances. account and risk of the shipper,
French's claim


the delivery to the master is a de-
20. The commercial domícil of a livery to him as agent of the ship-

merchant, at the time of the cap per, not of the consignee ; and it
ture of his goods, determines the is competent to the consignor at
chracter of hose goods. hostile or any time before actual delivery to
neutral. The Frances. Gillespie's the consignee, to countermand it,

363 and thus to prevent the consignee's


[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

gust, 1812.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

fien from attaching. The Frances. mistake, and no other suspicious
Irvin's claim,

418 circumstances appear in the case,
27. Under the 8th section of the

further proof may be allowed.
prize act of June 26th, 1812, the The St. Lawrence,

president had authority to issue 34. Trading with the enemy is not
the instructions of the 28th of Au excused by the necessity of ob-

The Thomas Gib taining funds to pay the expenses
421 of the ship ; nor by the

pinion of
28. The commissions of the privateers an American minister, expressed

of the United States may be quali to the master, that by undertaking
fied and restrained by the instruc the voyage he would violate no
tions of the president. The Tho law of the United States.

mas Gibbons,
421 Joseph,

29. A shipment made, even after a 35. If an American vessel be cap-

knowledge of the war, is to be con tured on a circuitous voyage to the
sidered as having been made in United States; in the former part
consequence of the repeal of the of which voyage she has been guil-
orders in council, if made within ty of conduct subjecting her to
so early a period thereafter as confiscation, although at the time
would leave a reasonable presump of capture she is committing no il-
tion that the knowledge of that legal act, she must be condemned..
repeal would produce a suspension The Joseph,

of hostilities on the part of the 36. Where the termini of a voyage
United States. The Thomas Ģib are already fixed, the continuity


of such voyage cannot be broken
30. By the mere act of illicit inter by a voluntary deviation of the

course the property of a citizen is master for the purpose of carrying
not divested ipso facto ; it is only on an intermediate trade. The
liable to be condemned as enemy Joseph,

property, or as adhering to, the 37. A capture as prize of war may
enemy, if rightfully captured lawfully be made, within the ter-
during the voyage. T'he Thomas ritorial limits of the United States

421 at any place below, low-water
31. The president's instructions of mark. The Jose'ih,

28th of August, 1812, were meant 38. Further proof will be allowed
to protect all British merchandize on the part of the captors as to
on board an American ship, with the fact of capture. The Grotius,
out any exception on account of

British proprietary interest. The
Thomas Gibbons,


32. A vessel sailing to an enemy's

country, after knowledge of the A purchaser of real estate in Alex-
war, and taken bringing from that andria is not personally liable for
country a cargo, consisting chiefly arrears of taxes assessed before
of enemy goods, is liable to con his purchase. Com. Council of
fiscation as prize of war. The St. Alex. v. Preston,


33. Suppression of papers where it

appears to have been intentional
and fraudulent, and attended with See Admiralty, 13,

other suspicious circumstatices, is
good cause for refusing further

proof. But where the suppression
appears to be owing to accident or 1. An appeal lies to this Court from

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

Upon an assignment of a plat and

certificate of survey obtained on a
land warrant in Virginia for 2,000
acres, the assignee, who obtains a
patent thereupon in his own name,
is not obliged to account with the
aşsignor for the surplus, if upon a
re-survey it appear that the ti act
contains 2,700 acres.

Vowles v.


Where the general owner of a ship

retains the possession, command
and navigation of the same, and
contracts to carry a cargo on
freight for the voyage, the charter
party is to be considered as a mere
affreightment sounding in cove-
nant, and the freighter is not
clothed with the character or le
gal responsibility of ownership;
but the general owoer is to be con-
sidered as owner for the voyage,
and, if he be master of the vessel,
he cannot commit

' barratry. Mar-
cadier v. Ches. In. Co.


[blocks in formation]


1. Upon the death of an assignee, Under the 11th section of the em-

under the bankrupt law of the bargo act of the 25th of April,
United States, the right of action 1808, the collector was justified, in
for a debt due to the bankrupt is detaining a vessel, by his honest
vested in the executor of the as opinion that there was an inter-
signee. Richards v. Md. In. Co. tion to violate the provisions of the

85 embargo laws. It was not neces-
2. Quere, whether the commission sary for him to show that his sus-
ers of bankrupt had a right to ap-

picion was reasonable

Crowell v.
point a second assignee in case of

M Fadon,
the death of the first ? Richards
V. Md. In. Co.



[blocks in formation]
« EelmineJätka »