網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版
[blocks in formation]

actually paid over to the Collec-
tor for distribution. The United
States v. Morris, 246. 287
Such remission extends to the
shares of the forfeiture or penalty
to which the officers of the cus-
toms are entitled, as well as to
the interest of the United States.
Ib. 287
The District Courts have jurisdic-
tion, under the Slave Trade Acts,
to determine who are the actual
captors, under a State law made
in pursuance of the 4th section of
the Slave Trade Act of 1807, c.
77. and directing the proceeds of
the sale of the negroes to be paid,
“one moiety for the use of the
commanding officer of the cap-
turing vessel,” &c. The Josefa
Segunda, 312. 322
In order to constitute a valid sei-
zure, so as to entitle the party to
the proceeds of a forfeiture, there
must be an open, visible posses-
sion claimed, and authority exer-
cised, under the seizure. Ib. 325
A seizure, once voluntarily aban-
doned, loses its validity. Ib. 326
A seizure, not followed by an ac-
tual prosecution, or by a claim, in
the District Court, before a hear-
ing on the merits, insisting on the
benefit of the seizure, becomes a
nullity. Ib. 327
Under the 7th section of the Slave
Trade Act of 1807, c. 77. the
entire proceeds of the vessel are
forfeited to the use of the United
States, unless the seizure be made
by armed vessels of the navy, or
by revenue cutters, in which case
distribution is to be made in the
same manner as prizes taken from
the enemy. Ib. 331
Under the act of the State of
Louisiana of the 13th of March,
1818, passed to carry into effect
the 4th section of the Slave Trade
Act of Congress of 1807, c. 77.

and directing the negroes import-
ed contrary to the act to be sold,
and the proceeds to be paid, “one
moiety for the use of the com-
manu-ng offic, r of the capturing
vessel, and time other moiety to the
. I reasurer of the Charity Hospi-
tal of New-Orleans, for the use
and benefit of the said hospital;”
no other person is entitled to the
first moiety than the commanding
officer of the armed vessels of
the navy, or revenue cutter, who
may have made the seizure, un-
der the 7th section of the act of
Congress. Ib. 332

22. Quaere, How far the State legisla-

tures may authorize the condemna-
tion of vessels as unseaworthy, by
tribunals or boards constituted by
State authority, in the absence of
any general regulation made by
Congress under its power of re-
gulating commerce, or as a branch
of the admiralty jurisdiction ?
Janney v. Columbian Ins. Co.

418

23. Under the Duty Act of 1799, c.

126. [ckxvi.) s. 43. it is no cause
of forfeiture, that the casks, which
are marked and accompanied
with the certificates required by
the act, contain distilled spirits
which have not been imported
into the United States, or a mix-
ture of domestic with foreign spi-
rits; the object of the act being
the security of the revenue, with-
out interfering with those mer-
cantile devices which look only
to individual profit, without de-
frauding the government. Sixty
Pipes of Brandy, 421

24. The District Court has not juris-

[ocr errors]

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

diction of a suit for wages earned
on a voyage, in a steam vessel,
from Shippingport, in the State of
Kentucky, up the river Missouri,
and back again to the port of de-

parture, as a cause of admiralty
and maritime jurisdiction. The
Thomas Jefferson, 428
The admiralty has no jurisdiction
over contracts for the hire of sea-
men, except in cases where the
service is substantially perform-
ed upon the sea, or upon waters
within the ebb and flow of the
tide. Ib.
But the jurisdiction exists,although
the commencement or termina-
tion of the voyage is at some
place beyond the reach of the
tide. It is sufficient, if the ser-
vice is essentially a maritime ser-
vice. Ib.
Quaere, Whether, under the pow-
er to regulate commerce among
the several States, Congress may
not extend the remedy, by the
summary process of the Admiral-
ty, to the case of voyages on the
western waters ? Ib.
However this may be, the act of
1790, c. 29. for the government
and regulation of seamen in the
merchant service, confines the re-
medy in the District Courts to
such cases as ordinarily belong to
the admiralty jurisdiction. Ib.
Upon an appeal from a mandate
to carry into effect a former de-
cree of the Court, nothing is be-
fore the Court but the proceed-
ings subsequent to the mandate.
The Santa Maria, 431. 442
But the original proceedings are
always before the Court, so far as
is necessary to determine any new
points in controversy between the
parties, which are not terminated
by the original decree. Ib.
After a general decree of restitu-
tion in this Court, the captors, or
purchasers under them, cannot set
up in the Court below new claims
for equitable deductions, meliora-
tions, and charges, even if such

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

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-
ings in cases of admiralty and
maritime jurisdiction in the
Courts of the United States, are
to be according to the modified

ALIEN.

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.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

CHANCERY.

. 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,

Wol. X.

[blocks in formation]

10.

11

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.

TUTE.

See ADMIRALTY, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15.

20, 21. 23. 28. 38.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 4.7.9, 10.

PATENT.
Ustry.

COLLECTOR

ARXIRALTY, 14, 15.

CONSULS.

24

See ADMIRALTY, 9.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

1. Congress has, by the constitution,

exclusive authority to regulate
the proceedings in the Courts of
the United States; and the States
have no authority to control those
proceedings, except so far as the
State process acts are adopted by
Congress, or by the Courts of the
United States under the authority
of Congress. Weyman v. Sou-
thard,

1.21
2. The proceedings on executions,

and other process, in the Courts
of the United States, in suits at
common law, are to be the same
in each State, respectively, as
were used in the Supreme Court
of the State in September, 1789,
subject to such alterations and ad-
ditions as the said Courts of the
United States may make, or as
the Supreme Court of the United
States shall prescribe by rule to

the other Courts. Ib.
3. A State law regulating executions,

enacted subsequent to September,
1789, is not applicable to execu-
tions issuing on judgments render-
ed by the Courts of the United
States, unless expressly adopted

by the regulations and rules of

those Courts. Ib.
4. The 34th section of the Judiciary

Act of 1789, c. 20. which pro-
vides, “ that the laws of the se-
veral States, except,” &c. “ shall
be regarded as rules of decision
in trials at common law, in the
Courts of the United States, in
cases where they apply," does
not apply to the process and prac-
tice of the Courts. It is a mere
legislative recognition of the prio-
ciples of universal jurisprudence,
as to the operation of the kr loci.

Ib.
5. The statutes of Kentucky con-

cerning executions, which require
the plaintiff to endorse on the ex-
ecution that bank notes of the
Bank of Kentucky, or notes of
the Bank of the Commonwealth
of Kentucky, will be received in
payment, and, on his refusal, au-
thorize the defendant to give a
replevin bond for the debt, paya-
ble in two years, are not applica-
ble to executions issuing on judge
ments rendered by the Courts of

the United States. Ib.
6. The case of Palmer v. Allen,

(7 Cranch, 550.) reviewed and re-
conciled with the present decision.
16.

37
7. The provision in the Process Act

of 1792, c. 137. [xxxvi.) author-
izing the Courts of the United
States to make alterations in the
regulations concerning execu-
tions, and other process issuing
from those Courts, is not a dele-
gation of legislative authority,
and is conformable to the consti-
tution. 16.

42
8. The act of assembly of Kentucky

of the 21st of December, 1821,
which prohibits the sale of pro-
perty taken under executions for
less than three fourths of its ap-
praised value, without the consent

praiseu

« 上一頁繼續 »