Volume 14 — United States Reports

Error oil judgment, rendered by the circuit court for the county of Washington, in-the District of Columbia, against the plaintiff, who Was in that court á petitioner for freedom. The pluiritiff being a child, and the slave of the defendant,-who resided in Virginia, was, .some short time before the month of May, J 810, put to live with Mrs. Rankin, then residing also in Virginia, whose husband was an officer in the marine corps, stationed in the city of Washington!

This case was similar to the preceding, in which the petitioners excepted to the opinion of the court below: 1st. That they had offered to prove, by com* petent witnesses, that they (the yvitriesses) had heard old persons, now dead, declare, that a certain Mary Davis, now dead, was a white woman, born ,in England, and such was the general report in the neighbourhood where she lived; and also offered the same kind of testimony to prove that Susan Davis, mother of…

Appeal, from, the Circuit Court fop the Rhode Island district. The . brig Samuel; sailed from St. Bartholomews, an island belonging to his majesty the king, of, Sweden, in the month of November, 1811, with a cargo consisting of rum, molasses, and some other articles* and arrived in Newport, Rhode Island, on the 8fh of the following December, where the vessel and cargo were seized and libelléd in the district court as being forfeited to the Unit ad.

Held: at which the judge of the High Court of Admiralty presides, and corffmon law judges are ihcluded iff the commission.. But it is held, that this statute does not alter the nature of the offence, which shall still be determined by the civil law,but the manner of trial only. (Hale’s P. C. 3 Inst. 112.) *23 Story, J,, delivered the

Held: that the goods having been purchased and shipped in pursuance' of orders from the cpnsignees, the property was originally vested in them, and was not devested by the intermediate,assignment, which was merely intended tp transfer the right'to -the debt due from the ooniignees. Appeal from the circuit court for the district 6f New-York.

Held: both in France and England, that the crown cannot interfere to . ,. , - . . ■ . , stop prize proceedings where private"parties have an interest. Admit that no fight of property is acquired, iff no right acquired ?, Most certainly an incipient right is acquired, to be afterwards consummated ; and the instructions' cannot have the effect, retroaétivély, to defeat the right of the captors to proceed . to adjudication.

circuit court for the district of Georgia. The Schooner Rugen and cargo were libelled in the district court for that district, as prize of war, either as belonging to the enemies of. the United States, or as the property of citizens who' had been trading with the enemy. A claim was interposed by Mr. Buhfing, a subject of the king of Sweden, on the ground that both vessel and cargo belonged to him, and were, bona fide, neutral property.

This was an action of Trover," instituted by tlicr 'defendant in eiTor, against Jonah Thompson,' agent for the Managers of the Potomac and. Shenandoah Navigation Lotteries, to recover a ticket ill the 2d class of said lotteries, against which had been drawn a prize of 20,000 dollars.

Error from the circuit. court for the county of Alexandria. This was an action of debt instituted by the defendants in error, (plaintiffs in the circuit court,) as directors of the Domestic Manufacture Company of Alexandria, against Robert Anderson, (the plaintiff in error,) on a bond given by him and others as sureties for John Mac Leod; agent of the said company, to the said directors, to recover the amount of money and merchandise which the said agent had received for the…

Error from the district court for the district of Louisiana. The defendants ill error commenced their suit in the said court, to recover the possession and property of certain lands in the city of New-Orleans; claiming title as,, the heirs of Elisha Winter’ deceased, under an alleged grant from the Span-goyemlnenh *n 1791; ■ which lands; it was stated, wei’e afterwards reclaimed hy the Baron de Carondelet, governor of the province of Louisiana, for the use of fortifications.

<p>■A hypothecation' of the ship by the master is invalid, unless it is sliowti by the creditor, that the advances Were necessary to effectuate the objects of the voyage, or the safety of the ship; and the supplies could not be procured upon the owner’s credit, or with his funds, at the place.</p> <p>A bottomry bond given to pay otf a former boiid, must stand or fall / with the first hypothecation, and the subsequent lenders can only claim upon the same ground with the preceding, of whom they arc virtually the assignees.</p>

decree of the circuit court for the district of Georgia. This ship having, taken in a cargo at Londpn, proceeded to. Portsmouth, and from thence, on the 12th of April, 1814, sailed for St. Bartholomews, under convoy of a British ship of war. From St. Bartholomews she sailed for the Havannah, but on her passage thither was.'captured.ánd sent.into the island of St. Thomas, for adjudication, by a British cruiser.

This was an action of ejectment commenced by the plaintiff in error in that court. On the trial of the cause, the plaintiff produced and . read in evidence an entry made on the 25th of February, 1778, in the name of Ephraim! Dunlap, for 400 acres- of land in the point between Tennessee and Holston rivers.

district of Georgia. This was an enemy’s vessel, captured by the privateer Ultor, in sight of Surinam, on the J*7th of May, 18Í3 ; and on the. 13th of June, 1813, recaptured by an enemy’s vessel of war, about two leagues from the .coast of Georgia, and, on the same day, recaptured by the privateer Midas, and brought into the port of Savannah, for adjudication.

This cause was argued by Hughes and Talbot, for the appellants, and Hardin, for the respondents. It was, principally, a question of fact arising under the local laws of real property in Kentucky, for an outline of which the general reader is referred to the Appendix, note I., where Will be found an exposition of the elementary principles, applicable to this class of Causes. '

<p>A question of fact respecting the validity of the location of a warrant, • fdr land under the' laws of Kentucky..</p>

- Appeal from the circuit court of the district of Gofumbia. This cause was argued by Jones, for the appellants and. complainants, and. Ham^ for the respondents and defendants

. This cause, depending mainly dn the same principles with the preceding case of Preston v. Browder,a was argued by Key for.the plaintiff, and by Jones fpr the defendant in' error. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Held: that the charter party is not the 'measure by which the captor is, in all cases, bound, even where no fraud is imp uted to the contract itself. When, by the events of war, navigation is rendered so hazardous as to raise the price of' freight to an extraordinary height, eaptórs are not, necessarily, bound to that inflamed rate of freight.

Held: that they were not good prize. The condemnation does more than destroy the jits recuperandi. It establishes what nothing else can establish, that the goods were lawful prize. . Restitution, on the other hand, establishes, conclusively;, that they never were lawful prize, although they might be justifiably seized, upon probable cause, as such. Marshall, Ch. J., delivered the

<p>A court of equity will de'cree a specific performance, of a contract for the sale of land, if the vendor is able to make a good title at any time before the decree is pronounced ; but the dismission of a bill to enforce a specific performance in such a case, is a bar to a new bill for the same object.</p> <p>The inability of the vendor to' make a good title at the time the decree is pronounced, though it forms a sufficient ground for refusing a specific performance, will not authorize a court of equity to rescind the agreement in a case where the parties have an adequate remedy at law for its breach.</p> <p>The alienage of the vendee is an insufficient ground to entitle the vendor to a decree for rescinding a' contract for the sale of lands, . though it may afford a reason for refusing a specific performance ps against the vendee.</p> <p>But if the parties have not an adequate remedy at law, the vendor may be considered as a trustee for whoever may become purchasers undér a sale by order of the court for the benefit of the vendee.</p> <p>Where the vendor is indebted to the vendee, and the sale is made in order to pay the debt, the vendor must pay interest from the time the debt is liquidated until he makes a good title, and the vendee is accountable for the rents and profits from the time the title iS • perfected until the contract is specifically performed.</p>

Appeal' from the circuit court for the district of Massachusetts. The ship.St. Joze Indiano* hound from Liverpool to Rio de Janeiro, was captured and' sent "into the United States, as prize of war, in the , summer of 1814. The ship and most of the cargo were condemned as British property in the circuit court, and there was no ,appeal by any of the claimants except in behalf of Mr. J. Lizaur, of Rio de Janeiro. , The right of Mr. .

The defendant in error, at June term, 1813, declared against the plaintiffs in error in assumpsit, upon an inland bill of exchange drawn by one Rootes on Renner & Bussard, and accepted by- them; to which declaration they pleaded non-assumpsit, and issue was thereupon joined, and the cause was continued to December term, 1813.

Held: that if a cargo be damaged in the course of the voyage, and it appear that what has been saved is less in var lue than the amount of the freight, it is a clear case of a total loss, It did not, however, appear, that the exact quantum of damage which shall Authorize an abandonment as for a total loss, had ever become the-direct subject of adjudication in the English courts, The celebrated Le Guidon, c. 7. art. 1.,…

; Error to the circuit court for the district of Columbia for Alexandria county. This was an action oT covenant brought in the name of Welch (for‘ the use of Prior) against Mandeville and Jamieson. The spit; abated as to Jamieson, by a return of no inhabitant. The defendant, Mandeville, filed two. pleas.

Held: that the courts of this country .have no jurisdiction to redress. any supposed torts committed on the high seas upon the property of its citizens by' a cruiser regularly commissioned by a foreign and friendly povver, except where such cruiser has been fitted out in violation of oiir neutrality. Appeal from the circuit court for the district of Massachusetts.

The offence charged in the information filed in this case, in t^e district court of Massachusetts, is, that the ship Edward, on the 12th day of February, 1810, departed from the port of Sá vaiinah.with a cargo, .bound to a foreign port with which commercial intercourse . was not permitted,. without a clearance, • and without giving a bond in conformity with the provisions of the act of congress of the 28th of June, 1809.

<p>Under the 6th and 8th sections of the act of Assembly of Virginia, of the 22d of December, 1764, property pledged to the Mutual Assurance Society,' &c., continues liable for aésessments, ijn account of the losses insured against, in the hands of á bona fide purchaser without notice. ' .</p> <p>A mere change of sovereignty produces no change in.thé state of rights existing in the soil; and the. cession of the District of. Columbia to the national government did not affect the lien created, by the above • .act on real propérty situate in the tówn of Alexandria, though the ' personal character or liability bf .a member of the society could not be' thereby forced on a purchaser of such properly.</p>

Held: &c., shall be precluded from prosecuting or defending said claim, under such purchase or contract; neither shall any suit, or suits, brought to establish such purchase, or make good the title to such claim, be considered as Coming within the provisions, either at common law or by statute, against champerty or maintenance,” «fee.

This case was argued, with great learning and ability, by Hoffman, for the plaintiff in error, and defendant in ejectment, and by Stockton, for the defendants in error, and plaintiffs in ejectment. But, as the court gave no judgment upon the, points discussed, the argument has been omitted-

Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that asserted ultimate Supreme Court authority over state courts in civil matters of federal law.

This was the case of a Swedish vessel captured on the 16th of April, 1814, by'the private arméd schooner Lawrence, on a voyage from Limerick, in Ireland, to Bilboa, in Spain.

<p>In cases of joint or collusive capture, the usual simplicity of the prize proceedings is necessarily departed from; and where, in these cases, there is the least doubt, other evidence than that arising from the captured vessel, or invoked from ether prize causes, may he resorted to-.</p>

This was an indictment in the circuit court for the district of Massachusetts, against the defendants, for forcibly rescuing a prize, which had been captured and taken possession of by two American privateers. The captured vessel was on her way, under the direction of a prize master and crew, to the port of Salem for adjudication. The indictment laid the of-fence as committed upon the high seas.

<p>Appeal from the circuit court of Georgia, This ves» sel and the cargo were libelled as prize of war. The ship was claimed by John E. Smith, the supercargo, in behalf of John Meyer, • alleged to be a Russian subject residipg at St Petersburg. The cargo coa-, sisted of logWQod and cotton, 200 bales of which were claimed by Smith, in behalf of Platzman & Gosler, also alleged to be Russian merchants of St. Petersburg. The remainder of the caigo., consisting of 950 bales of cotton, and 38 Ions of logwood, were claimed in behalf of John Inerarity, a Scotchman, domiciled at Pensacola, and an adopted Spanish subject. The. vessel was restored in the district court, and the cargo condemned, except the logwood, which was restored. Both- parties appealed to the circuit court, and the cause was then heard and considered ; but that court, under the influence of personal considerations, rendered only a pro forma decree, affirming the sentence of the district court, at the same time expressing a strong opinion that both vessel and cargo were liable to condemnation. The cause had been continued at the last term of -this court for farther proof, but no farther proof was produced at the present term.</p>

Held: or might claim, the land to the prejudice of M‘Kee himself.

In this case, which was principally a question of fact, Pinkney and Charleton, for the claimant, stated, that the condemnation in the court below was partly grounded on a comparison of certain documents in this case, with a paper invoked from the Stackelburg, another prize cause brought from the same court: that comparison of hands can never be evidence in a court that has not the two writings before it; and that the original papers might be brought up from the court below,…

Held: by the Lords of Appeal, incapable of receiving restitution in a transaction in which he could not lawfully be engaged, as a sole trader, I b. 131.

Held: that the fraudulent debtor must be first criminally convicted in order to give effect to this provision. Hunter, contra. 1. The discharge was obtained *452 by a court of competent jurisdiction, and is, therefore, of complete obligation.

Held: that the personal representatives of the de* ceased collector and surveyor, and Dot their successors in office, were entitled to that portion of the penalty which is, by law, to he distributed am'oDg the revenue officers of the district where it was incurred. There being no naval officer in the district, the division was adjudged to be made in equal proportions between the collector and surveyor.

This was an ejectment for one moiety of a lot of land lying in Nashville. The cause was argued at February term, 1815, by Humphries and Jones, for the plaintiff in error, and by P. B. Key and Swam, for the defendant, and was continued for ad- . . visement to the present term.

The defendant in error, who was plaintiff in the court below, claimed title under a grant from the state of Tennessee, bearing date the 26th day of April, 1809, founded on an entry made in the entry taker’s office of Washington county, Ño. 975, dated on the 2d day of January, 1779, in the name of John M‘Dowell, for 500 acres of land, on which a warrant issued on the 17th day of May, 17/79.