CTH LIU

C.

CAPTOR

CAPTURE

EQUITY.

FUNDS, WITHDRAWING OF

1. If the case be clear, a Court of 1. See Admiralty, 5,

169
equity will interpose to quiet the 2. Quere, whether goods purchased

title. Alexander v. Pendleton, 462 before the war by a citizen of the
2. See Purchaser, 2, 3,

462

United States for the purpose of
3. See Specific performance, 471 withdrawing funds from England

to the United States are good
EVIDENCE
prize. The Mary,

388
It is a fatal objection to a deposition,

FURTHER PROOF.
taken under the 30th secrion of the
judiciary act of 1789, that it was 1. See Admiralty, 16, 17, 18, 22.
opened out of Court.
Beale v. 2. The Mary,

38%
Thompson and Maris,

70

G.
EXCHANGE

GENERAL ISSUE.
See Insurance,

55

1. In a writ of right the tenant can-
EXECUTOR.

not, in Kentucky, give in evidence

upon the general issue any matter
1. See Administration,

9 of abatement Green u. Liter, 231
2. If a judgment be rendered against 2. Under the act of Virginia of 1786,
one as executor, who is not execu the tenant in a writ of right may

it does not bind the, estate of plead any special matter in bar, or
the testator, and an execution up-. give it in evidence under the gene-
'on such a judgment could not le. ral issue. Green' v. Liter, 231
gally be levied upon such estate.
Griffith v. Frazier,

9

GRANT,
3. By the law of South Carolina ad-
ministration durante absentia tes 1. See Conveyance, 1, 2, 3,

229
tatoris cannot be granted after

2. See Assignment,

371
probate of the will and letters
testamentary granted. Griffith v.

I.
Frazier,

10
4. See Bankrupt, 1, 2,

85

INSOLVENT.
5. If an executor do not cause him.
self to be made party to a suit 1. See Columbia, 1,

36
brought in the life time, and in the 2. In case of insolvency the United
* name of the testator, and pending States are not entitled to priority

at his death, it is to be considered of payment, unless the insolvency
as a voluntary abandonment of the be a legal and known insolvency
action, so as to exclude the execu manifested by some notorious act
tor from the benefit of the equity of the debtor pursuant to law.
of the exceptions to the statute of Prince v. Bartlett,

· 431
limitations. Richards v. Md. In.
Co.

85

INSURANCE.

tor,

F.

FORFEITURE.

1. Where a technical total loss is

sought to be maintained upon
the mere ground of deterioration
of the cargo, at an intermediate
port, to a moiety of its value, all

See Admiralty, 23, 24,

39

G

deterioration of memorandum ar 5. A policy on goods to be safely
ticles must be excluded from the landed at Leghorn, is discharged
estimate. Therefore, in a cargo by landing them at the Lazaretto;
of a mixed character, no abandon-* that being the usage of the trade.
ment, for mere deterioration in Gracie v Marine In. Co., 75
value during the voyage, can be 6. Quere, whether ransom can te
valid, unless the damage on the recovered where there is a war-
non-memorandum 'articles exceed ranty against particular average ?
a moiety of the whole cargo in Gracie v. Marine In. Co. 75
cluding the memorandum articles.
Marcadier v. Ches. In. Co.

INSTRUCTIONS.
2. Where the general owner of a
ship retains the possession, com See Admiralty, 27, 28,

421
mand and navigation of the same,
and contracts to carry a cargo on

J.
freight for the voyage, the charter
party is to be considered as a JOINDER IN ACTION.
mere affreightment sounding in
Covenant, and the freighter is not 1. See Abatement, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 230
clothed with the character or le 2. See Joint merchants, 2;

30
gal responsibility of ownership. 3. See Joint owners, 1,

50
In such case the general owner is
also owner for the voyage ; and if JOINT MERCHANTS.
he be the master of the vessel he
is incapable of committing barra. 1. A promissory note given by one
try. Marcadier v. Ches. In. Co. member of a commercial company

40

to another member, for the use of
3. When a cargo is, insured by di the company, will maintain an ac-

vers policies, in some of which tion at law by the promisee in his
the rate of exchange is fixed at

name against the maker.
which the prime cost of the cargo

Van Ness v. Forrest,

30
shall be valued ; in ascertaining 2. If the declaration be upon a joint
the amount of the interest of the note, and the Defendant plead
insured, upon settlement of those that it is the separate note of one
policies in which the rate of ex-

of the Defendants, and was given
change is fixed, the whole cargo is to and accepted by the Plaintiff in
to be valued at that rate of ex full satisfaction of the debt, the
change without regard to the rate. plea is bad on special demurrer,
of exchange by which the value because it amounts to the general
may have been ascertained in the

Van Ness v. Forrest,

31
other policies. Pleasants v. Md. 3. See Admiralty, 12, 13, 253
In. Co.

56
4. If a pulicy insures against

JOINT OWNERS.
“ lawful arrests, restraints and de-
“ tainments of all kings, princes,”. 1. If two joint owners of merchandize
&c. the qualification - unlawful” consign it to a merchant for sale,
extends, in its operation, as well and inform him that each owns
to " restraints and detainments." one moiety; and if they give se-
as to “arrests ;" and, in such parate and variant instructions,
case, a detaininent by a force law each for his own moiety, one of
fully blockading a port, is not the consignors alone may maintain
peril insured against by a policy a separate action against the con-
containing a warranty of neutrali signee for a violation of his sepa-
ty. M Call v. Marine In. Co. 59 rate instructions. Hallv. Leigh, 50
VOL. VIII.

62

TRAST

own

issue.

4, 1,
nsolvency #
i entitled
unless the i
d knowo

some notes
r pursuan
"tlett,

un-

RANCE

hoical tatals

maintained
nd of deren
at an intern
ty of its

At common law, no action could be See Insurance, 5,

75
renewed by Journeys accounts in
case of voluntary abandonment.

LEGHORN.
Richards v. Md. In. Co. 85
See Insurance, 5,

75
JUDGMENT.

LIEN.
See Executor, 2,

9

See Admiralty, 16, 25, 335, 418
JURISDICTION.

LICENSE OF THE ENEMY.
1. The acts of a tribunal upon a

subject not within its jurisdiction, See Admiralty, 5, 7, 8, 9.

are void. Griffith v. Frazier, 9
2. The Circuit Courts of the United

LIMITATIONS.
States have jurisdiction in writs of
right where the properiy demand 1. An acknowledgment of the ori-
ed exceeds 500 dollars in value; ginal justice of the claim is not
and if upon the trial the deman sufficient to take the case out of
dant recover less, he is not to be the statute of limitations; the ac-
allowed his costs; but, at the dis knowledgment must go to the fact
cretion of the Court, may be ad that it is still due. Clement son v.
judged to pay costs.
Green v. Williams,

72
Liter,

229

2. The statute of limitations is en-
3. See Anneal, 1,

251 titled to the same respect as other

statutes, and ought not to be ex-
K.

plained away. Clementson v. Wil-
liams,

72
KENTUCKY.

3. Quere, whether the acknowledge

ment by one partner, after the
See Writ of right,

229 dissolution of the partnership, is

sufficient to take a case out of the
statute of limitations? Clement-
son v. Williams,

72
LANDING OF GOODS. 4. If an executor do not cause him-

self to be made party to a suit
See Admiralty, 3,

110 brought by his testator in his life

time and pending at his death, he
LANDS.

cannot maintain a new suit under

the equiry of the exceptions in the
1. Under the statute of Virginia re statute of Timitations. Richards
specting wills, it is necessary (in v. Md. In. Co.

85
order that lands acquired after 5. See Journey's accounts,

85
the date of the will may pass by 6. See Columbia, 2,

98
the will) that the intention of the 7. In Virginia a possession of thirty
testator should clearly appear up years, under some circumstances,
on the face of the will. Smith v. and of fifty years, under any, con-
Edrington,

66 stitutes a title against all the
2. See Columbia, 2, 3,

98
world.

Alexander W. Pendle-
3. See Writ of right,

229
ton,

469

e partner, a

the parmes

30
72

232
371

he excepat

See Admiralty, 15,

335

PARTNERSHIP.
NON-IMPORTATION. 1. See Joint merchants, 1, 2,

2. See Limitations, 3,
See Admiralty, 10,

221

PATENT.
NON-INTERCOURSE ACT.

1. See Conveyance, 1,
1. Quere, whether the non-inter 2. See Assignment,

course act, as it regards Great
Britain, was not merged in the law

PERMIT,
of war The Rapid,

164
2. The forfeiture of goods for the See Admiralty, 1,

violation of the non-intercourse act
of March 1st, 1809, takes place

PLEADING,
upon the commission of the offence
and avoids a subsequent sale to an

1. See Joint merchants, 1, 2,
innocent purchaser, although there 2. See Abatement,
may have been a regular permit

accounts,

,
2.

169

onssession of
me circoat
rs, under 3

agains
nder v.1

30
229