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,
9
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 act.
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,
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 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,
169
6. It is a good capture although only
a prize-master be put on board. The Alexander,
169 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 Julia,
181 The Aurora,
203 The Hiram,
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 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]](https://books.google.ee/books/content?id=18hOAQAAMAAJ&hl=et&output=html_text&pg=PA483&img=1&zoom=3&q=nature&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U3070JJqVDwFtqqhybTZuYV8lIF6A&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=-6,135,67,376)
![[ocr errors]](https://books.google.ee/books/content?id=18hOAQAAMAAJ&hl=et&output=html_text&pg=PA483&img=1&zoom=3&q=nature&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U3070JJqVDwFtqqhybTZuYV8lIF6A&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=0,695,54,37)
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 venture,
221
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 Venus,
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 253
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,
254 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,
335 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]](https://books.google.ee/books/content?id=18hOAQAAMAAJ&hl=et&output=html_text&pg=PA483&img=1&zoom=3&q=nature&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U3070JJqVDwFtqqhybTZuYV8lIF6A&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=-31,803,129,676)
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,
398 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
fence.
United States v. Brig to eff ct such a change of property Mars,
417 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,
418 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
359
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, claim,
363 and thus to prevent the consignee's
![[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]](https://books.google.ee/books/content?id=18hOAQAAMAAJ&hl=et&output=html_text&pg=PA485&img=1&zoom=3&q=nature&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U0yx05vbQgXYDgsIFxMFqnTwgh_8Q&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=-10,117,94,255)
![[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]](https://books.google.ee/books/content?id=18hOAQAAMAAJ&hl=et&output=html_text&pg=PA485&img=1&zoom=3&q=nature&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U0yx05vbQgXYDgsIFxMFqnTwgh_8Q&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=-4,364,77,406)
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,
435 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 bons, 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.
The mas Gibbons, 421 Joseph,
451 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,
452 of hostilities on the part of the 36. Where the termini of a voyage United States. The Thomas Ģib are already fixed, the continuity bons,
421
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,
452 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 Gibbons,
421 at any place below, low-water 31. The president's instructions of mark. The Jose'ih,
452 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
456 British proprietary interest. The Thomas Gibbons,
422
ALEXANDRIA. 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,
53 Lawrence,
434 33. Suppression of papers where it
AMERICAN SHIP. appears to have been intentional and fraudulent, and attended with See Admiralty, 13,
254 other suspicious circumstatices, is good cause for refusing further
APPEAL. 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]](https://books.google.ee/books/content?id=18hOAQAAMAAJ&hl=et&output=html_text&pg=PA485&img=1&zoom=3&q=nature&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U0yx05vbQgXYDgsIFxMFqnTwgh_8Q&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=-13,732,107,720)
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. Craig,
372
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.
40
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.ee/books/content?id=18hOAQAAMAAJ&hl=et&output=html_text&pg=PA486&img=1&zoom=3&q=nature&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U2NA6sutp2hro4Hyq3LAe5K9l0KoQ&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=96,724,442,193)
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.
85
COLUMBIA.
« EelmineJätka » |