1

nance of the Corporation of the
city of Washington, gave a bond
to the corporation, conditioned
"truly and impartially to execute
the duty and authority vested in
him by the ordinance;" held,
that the person entitled to a prize
ticket had no right to bring a suit
for the prize against the manager,
upon his bond, in the name of the
corporation, without their con-
sent. Corporation of Washing-
ton v. Young,
406
9. An appeal under the Judiciary
Acts of 1789, c. 20. s. 22. and of
1803, c 353. [xciii.] prayed for,
and allowed within five years, is
valid, although the security was
not given until after the lapse of
five years.
The Dos Hermanos,
306. 311

10.

11.

51

7. The laws of the United States
authorize the Courts of the Union
so to alter the form of the process
of execution used in the Supreme
Courts of the States of 1789,

PRIZE.

Ib.

1. Seizures made, jure belli, by non-
commissioned captors, are made
for the government, and no title

1. In a contract for the loan of mo
ney, the law of the place where
the contract is made is to govern ;
and it is immaterial that the loan
was to be secured by a mortgage
on lands in another State. De
367.383
Wolf v. Johnson,
2. In such a case, the statutes of
usury of the State where the
contract was made, and not those
of the State where it is secured
by mortgage, are to govern it,
unless there be some other cir-
cumstance to show, that the par-
ties had in view the laws of the
latter State.

Ib.
3. Although a contract be usurious
in its inception, a subsequent
agreement to free it from the taint
of usury, will render it valid. Ib.
392
4. The purchaser of an equity of
redemption cannot set up usury
as a defence to a bill brought by