ΤΟ

98

the amount of salvage is discre-
tionary, appeals should not be
encouraged upon the ground of
minute distinctions of merit, nor
will the Court reverse the de-
cision of an inferior Court, un-
less it manifestly appears that
some important error has been
committed. The Sybil,
The demand of the ship owners
for freight and general average
in such a case, is to be pursued
against that portion of the cargo
which is adjudged to the owners
of the goods, by a direct libel, or
petition; and not by a claim in-
terposed in the salvage cause.
Id.
Any citizen may seize any pro-
perty forfeited to the use of the
government, either by the mu-
nicipal law, or as prize, in or-
der to enforce the forfeiture;
and it depends upon the govern-
ment whether it will act upon
the seizure; if it proceeds to
enforce the forfeiture by legal
process, this is a sufficient con-
firmation of the seizure.
Caledonian,

99

The

100

438

7. Where the proceedings by ma-
terial men is in rem to enforce a
specific lien, it is incumbent up-
on the party to establish the ex-
istence of such lien in the par-
ticular case. Id. 438. 443
3. Where repairs have been made
or necessaries furnished to a
foreign ship, or to a ship in the
port of the State to which she
does not belong, the general
maritime law gives the party a
lien on the ship itself for his se-
curity, and he may maintain a
suit in rem, in the Admiralty, to
enforce his right. Id. 443
9. But as to repairs or necessaries
in the port or State to which
the ship belongs, the case is
go-
verned altogether by the local
law; and no lien is implied un-
less by that law. Id.
443
10. By the common law, material
men furnishing repairs to a do-
mestic ship have no particular
lien upon the ship itself for their
demand. Id.
443
11. A shipwright who has taken a

ship into his possession to repair
it, is not bound to part with the
possession until he is paid for
the repairs. But if he parts
with the possession (of a domes-
tic ship,) or has worked upon
it without taking possession, he
has no claim upon the ship itself.
Id.
443
12. The common law being the law
of Maryland on this subject,
material men cannot maintain a
suit in rem in the District Court
of Maryland for supplies fur-
nished to a domestic ship, al-
though they might have main-
tained a suit in personam in that
Court. Id.

443

DOMICIL.

LICENSE.

PRACTICE, 5, 6.

PRIZE.

ALIEN.

1. An alien may take an estate in
lands by the act of the parties,
as by purchase, but he cannot
take by the act of the law, as by
descent. Orr v. Hodgson, 453
2. Where a person dies, leaving is-

3.

4.

5.

sue, who are aliens, the latter
are not deemed his heirs in law;
but the estate descends to the
next of kin who have an inheri
table blood, in the same man-
ner as if no such alien issue
were in existence. Id.
The 6th article of the treaty of
peace of 1783, between the Uni-
ted States and Great Britain,
completely protected the titles
of British subjects to lands in
the United States, which would
have been liable to forfeiture,
by escheat, for the defeat of ali-
enage. That article was not
meant to be confined to confis-
cations jure belli. Id.
The 9th article of the treaty of
1794, between the United States
and Great Britain, applies to the
title of the partics, whatever it
is, and gives it the same legal va-
lidity as if the parties were citi-
zens. It is not necessary that
they should show an actual pos-
session or seizin, but only that
the title was in them at the time
the treaty was made. Id.
The 9th article of the treaty of
1794, did not mean to include
any other persons than such as

taken by the individuals who
composed the Association at the
death of the testator; the sub-
sequent incorporation of the As-
sociation did not give it the ca-
pacity of taking this bequest;
there are no persons who could
entitle themselves to the benefit
of this legacy, were it not a cha-
rity; and it is not sustainable in
this Court, as a charity. Id.28, 29

LEX LOCI.

CHANCERY.

1. In 1790, S. H. a citizen of Vir-
ginia, made his last will, con-
taining the following bequest:
"Item, what shall remain of my
military certificates at the time
of my death, both principal and
interest, I give and bequeath to
The Baptist Association, that for
ordinary meets at Philadelphia
annually, which I allow to be a
perpetual fund for the education
of youths of the Baptist deno-
mination, who shall appear pro-
mising for the ministry, always
giving a preference to the de-
scendants of my father's family."
In 1792, the Legislature of Vir-
ginia passed an act repealing all
English statutes. In 1795, the
testator died. The Baptist As-
sociation in question had existed
as a regularly organized body
for many years before the date
of his will; and in 1797 was in-
corporated by the Legislature of
Pennsylvania, by the name of
"The Trustees of the Philadel-
phia Baptist Association." Held,
that the Association, not being
incorporated at the testator's de-
cease, could not take this trust
as a Society. Baptist Associa-
tion v. Hart's Ex'rs.

ed in England. Id.

29
4. The English stat. 43d of Eliz.
gives validity to some devises to
charitable uses, which were not
valid, independent of that stat-

5.

ute.

31

Id.
Charitable bequests, where no
legal interest is vested, and
which are too vague to be
claimed by those for whom the
beneficial interest was intended,
cannot be established by a court
of equity, exercising its ordinary
jurisdiction, independent of the
stat. 43d Eliz. Id.
Such charitable bequests cannot
be established by a Court of
equity, enforcing the preroga-
tive of the king, as parens patriæ,
independent of the statute 43d
Eliz. Id.
7. If, in England, a charitable be-

6.

8.

9.

10.

33

39

quest of this nature, could be
enforced by virtue of the king's
prerogative as parens patriæ,
Quære, How far this principle
is applicable in the Courts of the
United States? Id.

50

Note on Charitable Bequests,
Appendix, Note I.

3

The rudiments of the law of cha-
rities derived from the Roman
law. Id.

3

5
No cases are considered as cha-
ritable unless they fall within

2. The above bequest could not be