Page images




[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]


1. See Embargo, 2,


2. If a vessel be captured by a supe-
rior force, and a prizemaster and
small force be put on board, it is
not the duty of the master and
crew of the captured vessel to at-
tempt to rescue her; for they may
thereby expose the vessel to con-
demnation although otherwise in-
nocent. Brig Short Staple v. U.



3. See Non-Intercourse, 1,
4. If a merchant vessel of the U.S.
be seized by the naval force of the
U. S. within the territorial juris-
diction of a foreign friendly power,
for a violation of the laws of the U.
S. it is an offence against that pow-
er which must be adjusted be-
tween the two governments. This
court can take no cognizance of it.
The law does not connect that
trespass with the subsequent sei-
zure by the civil authority under
the process of the District Court
so as to annul the proceedings of
that court against the vessel. Ship
Richmond v. U. S

5. See Duties, 1, 2,



6. If, upon the breaking out of a war

with this country, our citizens
have a right to withdraw their
property from the country of the
enemy, it must be done within a
reasonable time. Eleven months
after the declaratlon of war is too
late. The St. Lawrence, 120
7. The condemnation of a vessel
as enemy's property, for want
of a claim, cannot prejudice a
a claim for her cargo; but it is still
competent for the claimant of the
cargo to controvert the fact that
the vessel was enemy's property,
so far as that fact could prejudice
his claim. The Mary,
8. One claimant cannot be prejudi-
ced by the contumacy of another.
The Mary.
9. The holder of a bottomry bond
cannot claim in a court of prize.
The Mary,
10. The president's instructions (to
privateers) of the 28th of August,
1812, protected an American ves-
sel sailing from England, in Aug.
1812, in consequence of the repeal
of the British orders in council,
and compelled by dangers of the
seas to put into Ireland, where
she was necessarily detained until
April 1813, when she sailed again
for the U. S. under the protection
of a British license. The continu-
ity of the voyage was not broken.
The Mary,


11. See Non-Intercourse, 2,
12. If a British merchant purchase
with his own funds, two cargoes
of goods in consequence of, but not
in exact conformity with, the or-
ders of an American house, and
ship them to America, giving the
American house an option, within
24 hours after receipt of his letter
to take or reject both cargoes;
and if they give notice within the
time, that they will take one car-
go but will consider as to the
other; this puts it in the power of
the British merchant either to cast
the whole upon the American
house, or to resume the property
and make them accountable for
that which came to their hands.

The right of property in the car-
go not accepted, does not, in tran-
situ, vest in the American house,
but remains in the British subject,
and is liable to condemnation, he
being an enemy. The Frances,


13. The produce of an enemy's colo-
ny is to be considered as hostile.
property so long as it belongs to
the owner of the soil, whatever
may be his national character in
other respects, or whatever may
be his place of residence. 30 hhds.
sugar v. Boyle,
14. An island, in the temporary oc-
cupation of the enemy, is to be
considered as an enemy's colony.
30 hhds sugar v. Boyle,
15. In deciding a question of the law
of nations, this court will respect
the decisions of foreign courts. 30
hhds. sugar v. Boyle,



16. If the documentary evidence of
the neutrality of the property be
contradicted by the circumstances
of the case, the court will not give
time for further proof unless there
be a probability that those circum-
stances can be satisfactorily ex-
plained. Cargo of the ship Ha-

17. See Freight, pro rata,


18. This court will not allow a new
claim to be interposed here, but
will remand the cause to the Cir-
cuit Court, where it may be pre-
sented. The Societè,
19. See Salvage, 1, 2,



20. A test-affidavit ought to state

[ocr errors]

that the property, at the time of
shipment, and also at the time of
capture, did belong, and will, if
restored, belong to the claimant ;
but an irregularity in this respect
is not fatal. A test-affidavit, by
an agent, is not sufficient, if the
principal be within the country
and within a reasonable distance
from the court. But if test-affida-
vits, liable to such objections, have
been acquiesced in by the parties
in the courts below, the objections
will not prevail in this court. Sch.


[blocks in formation]


1. See Equity, 6, 7,

creased in the U S. if the prize be See Washington City, 1,
brought infra præsidia. The brig
26. In order to constitute a capture,
some act should be done indicative
of an intention to seize and retain
as prize. It is sufficient if such
intention is fairly to be inferred
from the conduct of the captor.
The Grotius,



27. See Duties, 4,
28. The stipulation in a treaty "that

"free ships shall make free goods,"
does not imply the converse propo-
sition, that enemy ships shall make
enemy goods. The Nereide, 389
29. The treaty with Spain does not
contain, either expressly or by im-
plication, a stipulation that enemy
ships shall nake enemy goods.
The Nereide,
30. The principle of retaliation, or
reciprocity, is no rule of decision
in the judicial tribunals of the U.
S. The Nereide,





2. A denial, in the answer of a defen-
dant in chancery, that his testa-
tor gave authority to draw a bill
of exchange, is not such an answer
to an averment of such authority
as will deprive the complainant of
his remedy; unless the defendant
also deny the subsequent assent of
his testator to the drawing of such
bill. Clark's executors v. Van

3. It is error to decide contrary to
the answer, if it be neither contra-
dicted by evidence nor denied by
a replication. Gettings v. Burch,



389 An equity of redemption of real

« PreviousContinue »