ePub 版

1824. much reason to doubt, whether the case of Bank U. S. Banks

bills, properly so called, and particularly so de

clared on, came within the general law applicable Planters' Bank.

to promissory notes; but here, non constat, that the notes declared upon were ever thrown into circulation, as the representative of property, as a currency, a substitute for gold and silver.

But the case does not rest herc. This ground of defence depends not on a .constitutional provision, but on an act of Congress; and if it be true, that the unrestricted right to sue on all its contracts, be vested in the Bank of the United States, whatever their origin, or whatever their amount, it follows, that such a provision amounts to a repeal of the law here relied on. I rather think, that the improbability of such a provision being intended by the Legislature, operates agoinst the construction that would sustain it. But if such be the legal construction of the incorporating act, there can be no doubt of its being fatal to this plea.

CERTIFICATE. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record of the Circuit Court of the United Staies for the district of Georgia, and on the questions in said cause, on which the Juilges of the said Circuit Court were divided in opinion, and was argued by counsel : On consideration whereof, this Court is of opinion, 1. That the averments in the declaration in suid cause, are sufficient in law to give the said Circuit Court jurisdiction in said cause.

2. That, on the pleadings in the same, the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment.

All which is ordered to be certified to the said Circuit Court.






[ocr errors]

1. A decree of acquittal, on a pro-

ceeding in rem, without a certifi-
cate of probable cause of seizure,
and not appealed from with effect,
is conclusive, in every inquiry be-
fore any other Court, that there
was no justifiable cause of seizure.

The Appollon, 362. 367
2. The French Tonnage Duty Act of

the 13th of May, 1820, c. 125.
inflicts no forfeiture of the vessel
for the non-payment of the ton.
nage duty. The duty is collecta.
ble in the same manner as by the
Collection Act of 1799, c. 128.

3. The 29th section of the Collection

Act of 1799, c. 128. does not ex-
tend to the case of a vessel arriving
from a foreign port, and passing
through the conterminous waters
of a river, which forms the boun-
dary between the United States
and the territory of a foreigo state,
for the purpose of proceeding to
such territory. Id. 369
The municipal laws of one na
tion do not extend, in their opera-

tion, beyond its own territory, ex.
cept as regards its own citizens.

5. A scizure for the breach of the mu-

nicipal laws of one nation, cannot
be made within the territory of an-
other. Id.

6. Il srems, that the right of visitation

and search for enforcing the reve-
nue laws of a nation, may be ex-
ercised beyond the territorial ju-
risiliction upon the high seas, and
on vessels belonging to such na-
tion, or bound to its ports. Id.

7. A municipal seizure cannot be jus-

tisicd or excused, upon the ground
of probable cause, unless under ihe
special provisions of some statute.

8. The probable-profits of a voyage,

either upon the cargo or freight, do
not form an item for the computa-
tion of damages, in cases of ma-
rine torts. Id.

9. Where the property is restored, af-

ter a detention, demurrage is al-
lowed for the detention of the ship,
and interest upon the value of the
cargo. Id.

10. Where the vessel and cargo have

been sold, the gross amount of the

[ocr errors]


sales, with interest, is allowed; and clude contra formarn &tatuti. The
an addition of 10 per cent. some Mering et al.

391. 401
times made, where the property 19. The District Court of the district
has been sold under disadvanta where the seizure was made, and
geous circumstances. Id. 377 not where the offence was com-
Counsel fees may be allowed, either mitted, has jurisdiction of pro-
as damages or costs, both on the ceedings in rem, for an alleged
Instance and Prize side of the forfeiture. Id.

Court. !d.

379 19. If the seizure is made on the high
12. A libel of information does not re seas, or withic the territory of a

quire all the technical precision of foreign power, the jurisdiction is
an indictment at common law. If confirred on the Court of the
the allegations describe th: offence, district where the property is car-
it is all that is necessary; and if ried and proceeded against. Id.
founded upon a statute, it is suffi-

cient is it pursues the words of the 20. A municipal seizure, within the
law. The Emily and the Caro territory of a foreign power, does

331 not oust the jurisdiction of the
3. An information, under the Slave District Court into whose district

Trade Act of 1794, c. 187. [xi.] the property may be carried for
3. 1. which describes, in one count, adjudication. Id. 402, 403
the two distinct acts of preparing 21. The prohibitions in the Slave
a vessel and of causing her to sail, Trade Acts of the 10th of May,
pursuing the words of the law, is 1800, c. 205. (li.) and of the
sufficient. ld.

387 20th of April,, 1818, extend as
Siating a charge in the alternative, well to the carrying of slaves on
is good, reach alternative consti freight as to cases where the per.
tuirs in offnce for which the thing sons transported are the property
is forfeited. Id.

387 of citizens of the United States;
15. Viider the above act, it is not ne and to the carrying them from

cessary, in order to incur the for one port to another of the same
feiture, that the vessel should be foreign empire, as well as from
completely fitted and ready for one foreign country to another.
sea. As soon as the preparations Id.

409, 404
have proceeded so far as clearly 22. Under the 4th section of the act
to manifest the intention, the right of the 10th of May, 1800, c. 205.

of seizure attaches. ld. 388 [li.} the owner of the slaves trans-
16. The former decision of this Court, ported contrary to the provisions

in the case of the Emily and the of that act, cannot claim the same
Caroline, (7 Cranch, 496.)recon in a Court of the United State,
ciled with its determination in the although they may be held in ser-
present case. Id.

387 vitude according to the laws of
17. The technical niceties of the com his owo country. But if, at the

mon law are not regarded in Ad time of the capture by a commis-
miralty proceedings. It is suffi sioned. vessel, the offending ship
cient, if an information set forth was in possession of a non-com-
she offence so as clearly to bring missioned captor, who had made
it within the statute upon which a seizure for the same offence, the
she information is founded. It is owner of the slaves may claim;
pot necessary that it should con the section only applying to per-

[ocr errors]

sous interested in the enterprise by a Court of justice in this coun- .
or voyage in which the ship was try? Id.

employed at the time of such cap. 30. The proviso in the 16th section of
turc. Id.


the Ship Registry Act, being by
23. A question of fact, under the way of exception from the enact-

Slave Trade Acts. Condemna ing clause, need: not be taken no-

tion pronounced. Id. 409 tice of in a libel brought to enforce
24. The claim of seamen, for wages, the forfeiture. It is matter of de-

on a voyage undertaken in viola fence to be set up by the party in
tion of the Slave Trade Acts, out his claim. Id. 425, 426
of the proceeds of the forfeited 31. The proviso applies only to the
vessel in the registry, rejected.. case of a part owner, and not to

414, 415 a sole owner of the ship. Id.
25. The claims of seamen, for wages,

and of material men, for supplies, 32. The trial, in such a case, is to be
wbere the parties were innocent by the Court, and not by a jury,
of all knowledge of, or participa in seizures on waters navigable
tion in, the illegal voyage, prefer from the sea by vessels of tea tons
red to the claim of forfeiture on burthen and upwards. Id. 427,
the part of the government. Id.

416 33. A registered vessel, which con-
- 36. Material men have a lien, which tinues to use its register, after a

may be enforced by a proceeding transfer under the above circum-
in the Admiralty, in rem, for ne stances, is liable to forfeiture under
cessaries or supplies, furnished in the 27th section of the act, as using
a port to which the vessel dors a register without being actually
not belong. Id.

417 entitled to the benefit thereof. Id.
27. A transfer of a registered vessel of

the United States, to a foreign 34. In a libel of information, under the
subject, io a foreigo port, for the 67th section of the Collection Act
purpose of evading the revenue of 1799, c. 128. against goods, .
laws of the foreign country, with on account of their differing in de-
an understanding that it is to be af scription from the contents of the
terwards reconveyed to the for entry, it is not necessary that it
mer owner, works a forfeiture of should allege ao intention to de
the vessel, under the 16th section fraud the revenue. 200 Chests
of the Ship Registry Act of the of Tea,

430. 436
314 of December, 1792, c. :1. 35. A question of fact, as to the rate
unless the transfer is made koown of duties payable upon certain
in the manner prescribed by the teas, imported as bohea. That
7th section of the act. The Mar. term is used in the duty act in its

421 known commercial sense ; and
28. The statute does not require a be the bohea tea of commerce is not

Deficial or bona fide sale ; but a usually a distinct and simple sub-
transmutation of ownership,“ by stance, but is a compound, made
way of trust, confidence, or other up in China, of various kinds of

.wise,” is sufficient Id. 424 the lowest priced black teas. Id.
29. Qucre, Whether, in such a case,

a reconveyance would be decreed 36. But, by the duty acts, it is liable

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

to the same specific duty, without
regard to the difference of quality
and price. . Id.

37. In judicial sales, there is no war-

ranty, express or implied. The

Monte Allegre, 616. 644
38. Upon a sale by the Marshal, under

an order of Court, no warranty is
implied. Id.

39. Neither the Marshal, nor his agent,

the auctioneer, has any authority
to warrant the article sold. Id.

40. Quære, How far the Marshal is

responsible to the vendee, in his
private capacity, if he undertake
to warrant, or to do what would
imply a warranty in a private
sale > Id.

Upon an Admiralty proceeding, in
rem, where the proceeds of the
sale are brought into Court, they
are not liable to make good i loss
sustained by the purcha ?r, in
consequence of a defec! being
discovered in the article sold. Id.

648, 649


1. Under the 9th article of the treaty

between the United States and
Great Britain, of 1794, it is not
necessary for the alien to show
that be was in the actual posses-
sion or seisin of the land, at the
date of the treaty, which applies
to the title, whatever that may
be, and gives it the same legal va-
lidity as if the parties were citi-
zens. The title of an alien mort.
gagee is protected by the trcaty.

Hughes y. Edwards, 489. 496
2. But, independent of the stipula-

tions of the treaty, an alien mort.
gagee bas a right to come into a
Court of equity, and have the
property, wbich has been pledged
for the payment of the debt, sold
for the purpose of raising the mo-

1. In a declaration upon a promissory

note, the omission of the place
where it is payable is fatal. Se-

bree v. Dorr, 558. 361, 562
2. By the custom of the Banks in the

District of Colòmbia, payment of
a promissory note is to be de-
manded on the fourth day after
the time limited for the bayment
thereof, in order to charge the en-
dorser, contrary to the general
law merchant, which requires a
demand on the third day. Ren-
ner v. Bank of Columbia, 581—

3. Evidence of such a local custoin

is admissible, in order to ascertain
the understanding of the parties,
with respect to their contracts
made with reference to it. Id.

4. Cases in which evidence of com-

mercial usage is admissible, in
order to ascertain the meaning of
contracts. Id.

5. The declaration against the endor-

ser, in such a case, must lay the
demand on the fourth, and not on

the third day. | Id. 594
6. Quære, Whether a declaration, in

such a case, not averring the local
usage; would be good upon de-
murrer? Id.

Secondary evidence of the contents
of a lost note is admissible, where
ever it appears that the original is
destroyed, or lost by accident,
without any fault of the party. Id.


« 上一頁繼續 »