Volume 12 — United States Reports

This was an action of trespass quare elausum fregit, brought by the plaintiff in the circuit court (who was also plaintiff in error), to recover a tiact of land, lying in the district of South Carolina, and in the possession of the defendant, to which the plaintiff asserted a title derived from a certain Joseph Salvadore. Both parties admitted, that Salvadore was legally seised of an estate in fee, in the land in dispute.

The case as stated by Marshall, Ch. J., in delivering the opinion of the court was as follows : *The defendant in error, who was president of a commercial company, consisting of four or five hundred members, sold certain mer- *- chandise, the property of the company, to Jehiel Crossfield, and took his note, payable in twenty days, to Joseph Forrest, president of the commercial company, for the purchase-money.

This was an appeal from the Circuit Court for the district of Columbia, sitting in chancery, at Alexandria.

Held: that if a cargo be damaged in the course of the voyage, and it appear that what has been saved is less in value than the amount of the freight, it is a clear case of a total loss. It does not, however, appear that the exact quantum of damage which shall authorize an abandonment as for a total loss, has ever become the direct subject of adjudication in the English Courts.

This case is so fully stated in the opinion of the court that it is deemed unnecessary to add more than that Harper and Pinkney, for the plaintiff in error, did not argue the case, as there was no appearance for the defendants in error, but simply stated, thát they contended that the separate instructions of each owner severed the joint interest, and cited 1 Esp. 117, and Watson on Partnership 233-34.

This was a motion in the court below, for judgment and execution against Preston (under the 11th section of the act of congress of 25th of February 1804, “to amend the charter of Alexandria,” 2 U. S. Stat. 259), for taxes due to the corporation for the years 1804, 1805 and 1806, on a lot of ground in Alexandria, which Preston purchased of Scott, in the year ISO'?, after the taxes were due.

Petersburg or Cronstadt, to Philadelphia, against all risks, for $6000, “ valuing *the invoice ruble at 46 cents.” •* The invoice amounted to 95,565.71 rubles, equal, at 46 cents per ruble, to $43,960.23. Before this policy was made, the plaintiff had effected eight other policies in Philadelphia, to the amount of $36,900. In the first seven of these policies, there was no valuation of the ruble ; but in the eighth, it was valued at 40 cents.

This was an action on a policy underwritten by the defendants, upon all kinds of lawful goods and merchandise, on board the ship Cordelia, on a voyage from the Island of Teneriffe, to Surabaya, and at and from *thence to Philadelphia, warranted American property.

This was an appeal from the Circuit Court for the district of Virginia, sitting in chancery. The bill sought to charge the lands of Christopher Edrington, in the hands of his son and heir-at-law, W. P. Edrington, with a debt due by his father, Christopher Edrington, to the complainants, by simple contract.

On the trial in the court below, the defendant, Beale, offered in evidence, the deposition of Tunis Craven, taken before the judge of the district court of the United States for the district of New Hampshire, under the 30th section of the judiciary act of September 24th, 1789 (1 U. S. Stat. 88), which, after prescribing the mode of taking ^'depositions, directs that “the depositions so taken shall be retained by such magistrate, until he L deliver the same, with his own…

The facts of the case are thus stated by the Chief Justice, in deliv- ¡ ering the opinion of the court: The plaintiff instituted a’suit against James Williams and John Clarke, merchants and partners trading under the firm of John Clarke & Co. The writ was executed on Williams only, who pleaded non assumpsit and the act of limitations, on which pleas, issues were joined. The jury found that the defendant did not assume ; and judgment was rendered in his favor.

The facts of the case, as stated by Marshall, Ch. J., in delivering the opinion of the court, were as follows : This case arose on a policy of insurance, bearing date the 19th of June 1807, for $20,000, on the cargo of the ship Spartan, “at and from Baltimore to Leghorn,” the risk to commence on the loading, and to continue “until the said goods shall be safely landed at Leghorn aforesaid.” The policy contained, in the printed part, the usual stipulation that the assured, in…

<p>Bamhrwptoy. — Statute of limitations.</p> <p>Upon the death of an assignee under the bankrupt law of the United States, the right of action, for a debt due to the bankrupt, vested in the executor of the assignee.</p> <p>If an executor do not cause himself to be made party to a suit, brought in the lifetime, and in the name, of the testator, and ponding at his death, it is to be considered as a voluntary abandonment of the action, so as to exclude the executor from the equity of the exceptions to the statute of limi tations.</p> <p>Qwere ? Whether the commissioners of bankrupt had a right to appoint a second assignee, in ease of the death of the first f</p> <p>At common law, no action could be renewed by journey’s accounts, in a case of voluntary abandonment.</p>

The case, as stated by Duvall, J., in delivering the opinion of the court, was as follows : An action of trover for. 650 barrels of flour, of the cargo of the schooner Union, was brought by John McFadon against Joseph Otis and the appellants, in the court of common pleas for Suffolk county, in the commonwealth of Massachusetts, where a trial was had and judgment rendered in favor of the defendants.

*The case as stated by Story, J., in delivering the opinion of the court, was as follows : L This is an action for money had and received, brought by the plaintiffs, as administrators of Charles Beatty, deceased, against the defendant, as administrator of David Burnes, deceased. The declaration alleges the promise to have been made in the lifetime of the respective intestates. The defendant has pleaded the general issue, and the statute of limitations of Maryland.

<p> Lcmding of imported goods. </p> <p>The penalty of the 60th section of the collection law of 2d March 1M9, which requires a permit for the landing of goods imported, applies to goods the importation of which was prohibited by law.</p>

This was an appeal from the sentence of the Circuit Court of Massachusetts, which condemned 550 tons of pine timber, claimed by Armitz Brown, the appellant. (Present, all the judges.)

This was an appeal from the sentence of the Circuit Court for the district of Massachusetts.

This was an appeal from the sentence of the Circuit Court for the district of Massachusetts. The following were the material facts in the case : The brig Alexander, William S. Picket, master, sailed from Naples, on the 22d June 1812, with a cargo of brandy, wine and cream of tartar, with a British license to carry the same from Naples to England. She touched at Gibraltar, and there left her deck-load, consisting of brandy, and sailed from thence for the United States.

Held: that the owner was bound by the assumed character. There is no similarity in the case before the court. The ship and cargo were documented as American, and not as British, property. As little will The Clarissa, 5 Rob. 4 , cited on the other side, apply.

This was an appeal from the Circuit Court for the district of Rhode Island. The following were the material facts of.the case : Some months after the declaration of war, the ship Aurora, documented as American property, and owned by Thomas M. Clarke and Ebenezer Wheelright, the claimants, who are American citizens, sailed fromNewburyport to Norfolk, in ballast.

This was an appeal from the decree of the Circuit Court for the district of Virginia. The facts of the case, as stated by Johnson, J., in delivering the opinion of the court, were as follows : The libellants were the master and crew of the American brig Three Friends.

Held: and may be held for a century, by the Indians. And can it be supposed that Virginia could have intended, when she invited the soldier and the capitalist to embark their fortunes in the war, and offered as a reward these lands, to have imposed the necessity of actual settlement and taking the esplees as a pre-requisite to title?

<p>This was an appeal from the Circuit Court for the district of Columbia.</p>

Held: that, from the moment he turns his back on the country where he has resided, on his way to his own country, he was in the act of resuming his original character, and is to be considered as an American. The character that is gained by residence, ceases by nonresidence.

This was an appeal from the decree of the Circuit Court for the district of Maryland. The following are the material facts of the case : The ship Merrimack, owned by citizens of the United States, sailed from Liverpool for Baltimore, a few days after the declaration of war by the United States against Great Britain, was known in that country, having on board a cargo of goods, shipped by British subjects, and consigned to citizens of the United States.

This was an appeal from the sentence of the United States’ Circuit Court for the district of Rhode Island. The facts were as follows : War was declared by the United States against Great Britain, on the 18th of June 1812. The ship Frances, having on board a cargo of goods of British manufacture, consigned to various persons in the United States, sailed from Greenock, in Scotland, on the 19th of July, in the same year, for New York.

This case, like the preceding, was an appeal from the Curcuit Court of Rhode Island : and the claim of John Graham, the appellant, was to certain other goods by the same ship, the Frances, captured and carried into Rhode Island, as stated in the case referred to, by the Yankee privateer. The material facts of the case, and the substance of the argument on both sides, are stated in the following opinion of the court, (a) delivered March 12 th, 1814, by—

This is another case of goods by the Frances, captured by the Yankee, and condemned in the Circuit Court of Rhode Island, brought up to this court on appeal. (Reported below, 1 Gallis. 445.) Messrs. Dunham & Randolph, merchants, of New York, claimed three bales and nineteen boxes of goods shipped by Alexander Thompson, of Glasgow, a British subject, and consigned to Dunham & Randolph.

This was likewise a case of goods by the Frances, condemned in the Circuit Court of Rhode Island. They wore claimed by Duncan Kennedy, an American citizen, who appealed to this court. The case was submitted to the court, without argument.

This, like the former cases of the Frances, was an appeal from the United States Circuit Court for the Rhode Island district. William French, the appellant, a citizen of the United States, claimed fourteen boxes of merchandise shipped on board the Frances, by James Auchincloss, of Paisley, in Scotland, to A. &.

This also ivas an appeal from the sentence of the Rhode Island Circuit Court, condemning certain goods captured on board the Frances, by the Yankee privateer. These goods were shipped by Colin Gillespie, tbe claimant, who had been naturalized in the United States, and consigned to Archibald Bryce and Alexander Muirhead, for sale and remittance to the shipper, at Glasgow.

This case, as stated by Todd, J., in delivering the opinion of the court was as follows : This suit was instituted on the chancery side of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Kentucky district, by the complainants, now appellants, as the heirs *and legal representatives of Mary -* Vowles, formerly Mary Frazer.

This was an appeal from the decree of the Circuit Court for the district of Massachusetts. The facts of the case were as follows : The brig Sally, John Porter, master, was captured by the privateer Jefferson, John Kehew, commander, July 7th, 1812, as prize, and sent into the port of Salem, in the district of Massachusetts, for adjudication.

<p>Prize court. — Further proof .</p> <p>Further proof, inconsistent with that already in the case, refused on the part of the claimant.</p>

This was an appeal from the sentence of the United States Circuit Court for the district of Rhode Island.

Held: and the reasons which support it, are disclosed on the record, and though the discussion in this court has not increased my confidence in that opinion ; nevertheless, as I am not yet satisfied of its incorrectness, and two *of my brethern concur in it, I shall make no apology for introducing it in this place.

This was an appeal from the sentence of the Circuit Court of Massacdusetts district, which affirmed the sentence of the district court, restoring the brig to the claimants.

This was an appeal from the sentence of the Circuit Court of Rhode Island, condemning certain British goods, captured on board the Frances. These good were claimed by Thomas Irvin, a domiciled merchant of the United States, on the ground of lien.

■ This was an appeal from the decree of tbe Circuit Court for the district of Georgia. The ship Thomas Gibbons sailed from Liverpool for Savannah, on tbe 16th of August 1812, was captured on tbe 12tb of October following, ou the high seas, oS Tybee light-house, and the same day, brought into the port of Savannah, as prize to the privateer Atas.

The case was submitted to the court, without argument, and is fully stated in the opinion which was delivered, as follows, by—

This was an appeal from the sentence of the United States Circuit Court for the district of New Hampshire. *The material facts of J the case were as follows : The ship St. Lawrence, Silas Webb, master, was captured, on the 20th of June 1813, by the private armed vessel America, and with her'cargo, libelled as prize, in the district court of New Hampshire.

<p>This was a case of capture, as prize, by the private armed brig Thorn, duly commissioned by the president of the United States, and commanded by Asa Hooper, Esq.</p> <p>*The Hiram, owned by Samuel G. Griffith, an American citizen, J sailed from Baltimore, on or about the 24th of September 1812, with a cargo of flour and bread, on a voyage to Lisbon. She was captured on the 15th of October following, and sent into Marblehead, in the district of Massachusetts, for adjudication. She was libelled in the district. court for the said district, by the captors. The vessel was claimed by Barker, the master, in behalf of Samuel G. Griffith ; and the cargo by the supercargo, in behalf of said Griffith and various other shippers, American merchants, at Baltimore.</p> <p>Among the papers found on board the Hiram, at the time of her capture, were certain papers commonly called a British license or protection, being a certified copy of a letter from Admiral Sawyer to Andrew Allen, Esq. late British consul at Boston, and an additional letter of safe-conduct from Mr. Allen. It appeared from the evidence, that this license was purchased from a citizen of the United States, and that a part of it was not filled up at the time of the purchase ; and that such licenses were a common article of sale in Baltimore and other places.</p> <p>There was also found on board, the owner’s letter of instructions, in which the supercargo was directed to remit the proceeds of the cargo, in bills of exchange or government bills, to the shippex-’s coiTespondents in Liverpool; and moreover to sell the vessel at Lisbon, if an advantageous sale could be made, and remit the proceeds to England. It appeared from the evidence in the cause, that such remittances in bills of exchange were common among merchants. '</p> <p>The captors claimed condemnation of the vessel and cargo, 1. Because of the British protection or license. 2. Because the remittances were directed to be made in England, in bills of exchange. The district and circuit courts both decided, that ^neither the vessel nor cargo were r*. .„ liable to condemnation; but allowed the captors their expenses.1 *■ From the decree of the circuit coixrt, both parties appealed.</p> <p>(Absent, Marshall, Ch. J.)</p>

This was tbe case of a vessel, tbe Joseph, owned by American citizens, captured by tbe privateer Fame, on tbo 16th of July 1813. The Joseph sailed from Boston, with a cargo on freight, on or about the 6th of April 1812, on a voyage to Liverpool and the north of Europe, and thence directly or indirectly to the United States.

*457] The Grotius, an American ship, owned by Thomas Sheafe and Charles Coffin, the claimants, sailed from Portsmouth, New Hampshire, March 2d, 1812, on a voyage, according to the shipping paper, from Portsmouth to one or more southern ports, and from thence to one or more ports in Europe, and back to her port of discharge in the United States, and to Portsmouth, if required.

Held: and of laying off that tract so as to extend it to north 17 west, thereby narrowing its breadth where it stretches towards the town of Alexandria, and giving it more length.

<p>Equity. — Specific performance.</p> <p>Alter a lapse of seven j-ears, the court will refuse to decree a specific performance of a contract, in the part execution of which the complainants, or those under whom they claim, have expended large sums of money, although the first default was on the part of the defendant, and although it be probable, that the failure of the defendant in that respect has prevented the completion of the execution of the contract on the part of the complainants; circumstances having so changed, that neither party could derive, from the execution of the contract, all the benefits which were at first expected.</p>