« 上一頁繼續 »
actually paid over to the Collec-
and directing the negroes import-
22. Quaere, How far the State legisla-
tures may authorize the condemna-
23. Under the Duty Act of 1799, c.
126. [ckxvi.) s. 43. it is no cause
24. The District Court has not juris-
diction of a suit for wages earned
parture, as a cause of admiralty
admiralty practice in our own country engrafted upon the British practice; and it is not a susficient reason for rejecting a particular process, which has been constantly used in the Admiralty Courts of this country, that it has fallen into desuetude in England. Ib. The process by attachment may issue, wherever the defendant has concealed himself or absconded from the country, and the goods to be attached are within the jurisdiction of the admiralty. Ib. It may issue against his goods and chattels, and against his credits and effects in the hands of third persons. Ib. The remedy by attachment in the admiralty, in maritime cases, applies even where the same goods are liable to the process of foreign attachment, issuing from the Courts of common law. Ib. It applies to the case of a piratical capture, and the civil remedy is not merged in the criminal of fence. 1b. In case of default, the property attached may be condemned to answer the demand of the libellant. Ib. It is not necessary that the property to be attached should be specified in the libel. Ib. It seems, that an attachment cannot issue without an express order of the Judge, but it may be issued simultaneously with the monition; and where the attachment issued in this manner, and in pursuance of the prayer of the libel, this Court will presume that it was regularly issued. Ib.
38. Under the Process Act of 1792,
c. 137, [xxxvi.) s. 2. the proceed-
The treaty of 1778, between the Uni
ted States and France, allowed or an ejectment, is held by analo- H
the citizens of either ceuntry to hold lands in the other; and the title, once vested in a French subject, to hold lands in the United States, was not devested by the abrogation of that treaty, and the expiration of the subsequent convention of 1800. Carneal v.
Banks, 181 ATTACHMENT. See ADMIRALTY, 37. 39, 40, 41,42, 43, 44, 45. C. CAPTORS.
See Prize, 1,2.
. Although bills of review are not strictly within the statute of limitations, yet Courts of equity will adopt the analogy of the statute in prescribing the time within which they shall be brought. Thomas v. Harvie, 146. 149 . Appeals in equity causes being limited by the Judiciary Acts of 1789, c. 20. s. 22. and of 1803, c. 353. [xciii.] s. 2. to five years after the decree, the same period of limitation is applied to bills of review Ib. 150 . Quaere, Whether a bill of review, founded upon matter discovered since the decree, is also barred by the lapse of five years? Ib. 151 It is in the discretion of the Court, to grant leave to file a bill of review for that cause. Ib. . Although the statutes of limitation do not expressly apply to Courts of equity, yet the period which takes away a right of entry,
parties in interest to be brought before the Court, does not affect the jurisdiction, but is subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, and may be modified according to circumstances. 1b. 166
. The joinder of improper parties,
as citizens of the same State, &c. will not affect the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts in equity, as between the parties who are properly before the Court, is a decree
may be pronounced as between
the parties who are citizens of the same State. Carneal v. Banks,
181. 188 A decree must be sustained by the allegations of the parties, as well as by the proofs in the cause, and cannot be founded upon a fact not put in issue by the pleadings. Ib.
. In the Courts of the United States,
wherever the case may be completely decided as between the litigant parties, an interest existing in some other person, whom the process of the Court cannot reach, as if such a party be a resident of another State, will not prevent a decree upon the merits. Elmendorf v. Taylor, 167 Bill to rescind a contract for the exchange of lands dismissed under the special circumstances of the case. Carneal v. Banks, 181 A certificated bankrupt or insolvent, against whom no relief can be had, is not a necessary party; but he cannot be examined as 8 witness in the cause, until an order has been obtained upon motion for that purpose. De Wolf v. Johnson, 38.4
CONSTRUCTION OF STA.
See ADMIRALTY, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15.
20, 21. 23. 28. 38.
ARXIRALTY, 14, 15.
See ADMIRALTY, 9.
1. Congress has, by the constitution,
exclusive authority to regulate
and other process, in the Courts
the other Courts. Ib.
enacted subsequent to September,
by the regulations and rules of
those Courts. Ib.
Act of 1789, c. 20. which pro-
cerning executions, which require
the United States. Ib.
(7 Cranch, 550.) reviewed and re-
of 1792, c. 137. [xxxvi.) author-
of the 21st of December, 1821,