APPENDIX. NOTE I. Additional Note on the Principles and Practice in Prize Causes. In the Appendix to the first volume of these Reports, (Note II.,) a summary sketch was attempted of the practice in prize causes in some of its most important particulars. It has been suggested that a more enlarged view of the principles and practice of prize courts might be useful, and in case of a future war, save much embarrassment to captors and claimants. With this view the following additional sketch is submitted to the learned reader. As preliminary to the subject it may be observed, that the ordinary prize jurisdiction of the admiralty extends to all captures made on the sea, jure belli, (The Two Friends, 1 Rob. 271. 284;) to captures in foreign ports and harbours, (Lindo v. Rodney, Doug. 613. note;) to captures made on land by naval forces and upon surrenders to naval forces either solely or by joint operations with land forces, (Lindo v. Rodney, Doug. 613. note. Chinsurah, 1 Acton, 179;) and this, whether the property so captured be goods, ships, or mere choses in action. (16.) To captures made in rivers, ports, and harbours of the a Connoîtront (les juges de d'aussi ancien date que celle de l'etal'amirauté) des prises faites en blissement de sa Jurisdiction. Or mer, &c. Ordonnance de 1681, donnance de 1400, art. 4. et suiv. Liv. 1., Tit. 2, de la Competence, de 1517, art. 3. et suiv. de 1543, Art. 3. Cette attribution à l'Ami- art. 20, et de 1584, art. 33. Va rauté pour les prises, est encora lin, Ib. VOL. II. 1 captor's own country, (W. B. v. Latimer, 4 Dall. Appendix I. Le Caux v Eden, Doug. 606. Lindo v Rodney, Doug. 613., note;) to money received as a ransom or commutation on a capitulation to naval forces alone, or jointly with land forces (Ships taken at Genoa, 4 Rob. 388. ;) and to ransoms upon captures at sea generally. (Anthon v. Fisher, Doug. 649. note (1) Maisonnaire v. Keating, 2 Gallis.) But the admiralty, merely by its own inherent powers, never exercises jurisdiction as to captures or seizures as prize made on shore without the cooperation of naval forces, whether made in our own, or in a foreign territory. (The Two Friends, 1 Rob 271. 284. The Emulous, 1 Gallis. 563.) Wherever such a jurisdiction is exercised, it is by virtue of powers derived aliunde. And though when the jurisdiction has once attached, it may be lost by a hostile recapture, escape, or voluntary discharge, (Hudson v. Guestier, The Two Cranch, 293.;) yet it remains notwithstanding the goods are landed, for it does not depend on their local situation after capture; but the court will follow the goods or their proceeds with its process wherever they may be found, or under whatever title acquired. (Home v. Camden, 2 H. Bl. 533. 4 Term Rep. 388. Willis v. Commissioners of Prize, 5 East, 22. The Noysomhed, 7 Ves. 593. The Louis, 5 Rob. 146. Friends, 1 Rob 271. The Eliza, 1 Acton, 336 Smart v. Wolff, 3 Term Rep. 223. The Pomona, 1 Dodson, 25.) Therefore, where the property is carried into a foreign port, and there delivered upon bail by the captors, the prize court does not lose its jurisdiction, but may proceed to adjudication and enforce the stipulation. (The Peacock, 4 Rob. 185.) So, if a prize be lost at sea, the court may, nevertheless, proceed to adjudication, either at the instance of the captors or of the claimants. (The Susanna, 6 Rob. 48.) So, although the property may be actually lying within a foreign neutral territory, the court may proceed to adjudication. (Hudson v. Guestier, 4 Cranch, 293. The Christopher, 2 Rob. 209. The Henrick and Maria, 4 Rob. 43. The Comet, 5 Rob. 285. The Victoria, Edwards, 97.) So, although the property has been sold by the captors, or has passed into other hands. (The Falcon, 6 Rob. 194. The Pomona, 1 Dodson, 25.) But it rests in the sound discretion of the court, whether, when property has been sold or converted by the captors, it will proceed to adjudication in their favour; for it is only in cases where the same has been justifiably or legally converted by the captors, that they can claim its aid. The court will withhold that aid where there has been a conversion by the captors without La Dame necessity or reasonable cause. (L'Eole, 6 Rub. 220. Cecile, 6 Rob. 257. The Arabella and Madeira, 2 Gallis.b) When once the prize court has acquired jurisdiction over the principal cause, it will exert its authority over all the incidents. It will follow, as has been already observed, prize proceeds into the hands of agents or other persons holding them for the captors, or by any other title; and in proper cases will decree the parties to pay over the proceeds, with interest, upon the same for the time they have been in their hands. (Smart v. Wolff, 3 Term Rep. 323. Home v. Camden, 2 H. b S'il y a aucun qui rompe coffre, balle ou pippe, ou autre marchandise que nostredit admiral ne soit présent en sa personne pour luy, il forfera sa part du butin et si sera par ice luy admiral puny selon le meffaict. Ordonnance de 1400, Art. 10. Coll. Mar. 79. Ordonnance de 1584, art. 38. Id. 111. Défendons de faire aucune ouverture des coffres, ballots, sacs, pipes, barriques, tonneaux et armoires, de transporter ni vendre aucune marchandises de la prise; et à toutes personnes d'en acheter ou recéler, jusqu'à ce que la prise ait été jugée, ou qu'il en ait été ordonné par justice; à peine de restitution de quadruple, et de punition corporelle. Ordonnance de 1681, liv. 3, tit. 9, Des Prises, art. 20. Quatre Juin, 1783, jugement en dernier ressort de l'amirauté de Dunkerque, contre les auteurs du c M. l'amiral et les commissaires connoîtront aussi des parlages des prises et de tout ce qui leur est incident, même des liquidations, et comptes des dépositaires lorsqu'ils le jugeront à propos, comme aussi des échouements des vaisseaux ennemis qui arriveront pendant la guerre, circonstances et dépendances. Réglement du 23 Avril, 1744. Arl. 5. 2 Valin Sur l'Ordonnance, 318. Bl. 533. 4 Term Rep. 382. Jennings v. Carson, 4 Cranch, 1. The Two Friends, 1 Rob. 273. The Princessa, 2 Rob. 31. The Louis, 6 Rob. 146. Willis v. Commissioners of Prize, 5 East, 22. The Noysomhed, 7 Ves. 593.) It may also enforce its decrees against persons having the proceeds of prize in their hands, notwithstanding no stipulation, or an insufficient stipulation, has been taken on a delivery on bail; for it may always proceed in rem where the res can be found, and is not confined to the remedy on the stipulation. (Per Buller, J. in 3 Term Rep. 323. Per Grose, J. in 5 East, 22. The Pomona, 1 Dodson, 25. The Herkimer, Stewart, 128. S. C. 2 Hall's Am. Law Journ. 133.) And in these cases the court may proceed upon its own authority, ex officio, as well as upon the application of parties. (The Herkimer, Stewart, 128. S. C. 2 Hall's Am. Law Journ. 133.) Nor is the court functus officio after sentence pronounced; for it may proceed to enforce all rights, and issue process therefor, so long as any thing remains to be done touching the subject matter. (Home v. Camden, 2 H. Bl. 533. and cases ubi supra.) The prize court has also exclusive jurisdiction as to the question who are the captors, and joint captors, entitled to share in the distribution, and its decree is conclusive upon all parties, (Home v. Camden, 2 H. Bl. 533. 4 Term Rep. 382. The Herkimer, Stewart, 128. S. C. 2 Hall's Am. Law Journ. 133. Duckworth v. Tucker, 2 Taunton, 7.) It has the same exclusive authority as to the allowance of freight, damages, expenses, and costs, in all cases of captures. (Le Caux v. Eden, Doug. 594. Lindo v. Rodney, Doug. 613. Smart v. Wolff, 3 Term Rep. 223. The Copenhagen, 1 Rob. 289. The St. Juan Baptista, 5 Rob. 33. The Die Frie Damer, 5 Rob. 357. The Betsey, 1 Rob. 93. Duckworth v. Tucker, 2 Taunt. 7. Jennings v. Carson, 4 Cranch, 2. Bingham v. Cabot, 3 Dall. 19. The United States v. Peters, 3 Dall. 121. Talbot v. Janson, 3 Dall. 133. 2 Brown's Civ. and Adm. Law, 208.) And though a mere maritime tort unconnected with capture jure belli may be cognizable by a court of common law; yet it is clearly established that all captures, jure belli, and all forts |