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,
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
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-
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,
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
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
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,
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,
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,
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
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
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,
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
« EelmineJätka » |