Alieus. id. Teaty with Great Blockade. Treaty with Great Blockade. Treaty with Great Courts. Treaty with Great Courts. British army, 37. A person born in England before the year 1775, and who always resided there, and never was in the United States, is an alien, and could not, in the year 1793, take lands in Maryland by descent from a citizen of the United States. --Dawson's lessee v. Godfrey-4, Cranch, 321, Sup. Court U. S. 1808. 38. Persisting in an intention to enter a blockaded port, after warning, is not attempting to enter it, within the meaning of the 18th art. of the British treaty of 1794.--Fitzsimmons v. The Newport Insurance Company-4, Cranch, 185, upreme Court U. S. 1808. 59. If an act of confiscation, independent of the British treaty of peace of 1783, should be construed to destroy the claim of a British mortgagee of land in Georgia, the 5th art. of that treaty re-instates the lien in its full force.--Higginson v. Mein—4, Cranch, 419, Sup. Court U. S. 1808. 40. A vessel sailing ignorantly for a blockaded port, is not liable to condemnation, under the law of nations.--Featon v. Fry-3, Cranch, 335, Sup. Court U. S. 1809. 41 Copies of the proceedings in the vice admiralty court of Jamaica, are admissible in evidence, not only under the 19th art. of the British treaty of 1794, but under the law of nations, and the practice of Courts of Admiralty, when authenticated, under the seal of the Court, by the deputy Regis trar, who is certified by the Judge of the Court, who is certified by a notary public.--id. ib. and p. 543. 42. If a defendant in ejectment in a State Court, set up an outstanding title in a third person, no party to the suit; and contend that such outstanding title is protected by the British treaty, and the State Court decide that such outstanding title is not protected by the treaty, it is not such a case arising under a treaty, as will give appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of the United States, under the constitution of the United States, although it be a case within the 25th sec. of the judiciary act of 1789--Owens v. Norwoods' lessee-5, Cranch, 344, Sup. Court U. S. 1809. 43. The Continental Court of Appeals, in prize causes, had Prize. power to revise and correct the sentences of the Admiralty Courts. Courts of the several States.--U. States v. Judge Peters, 5— Cranch, 115, Sup. Court U. S. 1809. council. 44. The British orders in council of the 11th of Nov. 1807, British orders in did not prohibit a direct voyage from the United States, to a colony of France.--King v. The Delaware Insurance Compa- Colonies. ny-6, Cranch, 71, Sup. Court U. S. 1810. 45. The Supreme Court of the United States has appellate Treaty with Great jurisdiction of a cause decided in the highest Court of one of Courts Britain. the States, where the question is whether a confiscation under Confiscation. id. France. 46. By the confiscating acts of Maryland, the equitable interests of British subjects were confiscated, without office found, or entry, or other act done, and although such equitable interests were not discovered until long after the peace-id. 47. The jurisdiction of French Courts, as to seizures, is not confined to seizures made within two leagues of the coast. Prize. 48. A seizure beyond the limits of the territorial jurisdic- Territorial juristion, for breach of a municipal regulation, is warranted by diction. the law of nations.-Hudson v. Guestier-6, Cranch, 281, Su preme Court, U. S. 1810. Courts. 49. The letter of Mr Merry, to the Secretary of State, of the 12th April, 1804, extended to the island of Curraçoa,' the orders of the Lords Commissioners of the admiralty of the 5th of January, 1804, respecting the Blockade of Martinique Blockade. and Guadaloupe, by which the British officers were directed "not to consider any blockade of those Islands as existing "unless in respect of particular ports, which may be actually "invested; and then not to capture vessels bound to such "ports, unless they shall have been previously warned not to "enter them."-Maryland Insurance Company v. Wood-7, Cranch, 402, Sup. Court U. S. 1813. 50. A sentence of a foreign tribunal condemning neutral Prize. property under an edict unjust in itself, contrary to the law of nations, and in violation of neutral rights, and which has Foreign sentence. been so declared by the legislative and executive departments of the government of the United States, changes the property of the thing condemned.--Williams v. Armroyd-7, Cranch, 423. Sup. Court U. S. 1813. 51. A sale by the authority of the captors, before sentence Prize. of condemnation, is affirmed by such sentence, and is good ab initio.-id. ib. Prize. Courts. Prize. Courts. Alien. Law of nations. tion. 52 A French tribunal, at Guadaloupe, had jurisdiction of property seized on the high seas for breach of the Milan decree, and carried into the Dutch port of the Island of St Martins, and there sold by order of the Dutch Governor of St. Martins, before condemnation, without any authority from the French tribunal at Guadaloupe.-id. ib 53 The American owner cannot reclaim. in the courts of this country, his property which has been seized and condemn ed in a French Court under the Milan Decree.-id. ib. 54. An Alien Enemy may take lands in Virginia by devise, and hold the same until office found, and such title is confirmed b the British Treaty of 1794.-Fairfax v. Hunter-7, Cranch. 604 Sup. Court U. S. 1813. 55. A public vessel of war., of a foreign sovereign, coming Municipal jurisdic into our ports, and de neaning herself in a friendly manner is exempt from the jurisdiction of this country.-The Schooner Ex-hang, v. McFaddon-7, Cranch, 116. Sup. Court U. S. Prize. Domicil. id. Confiscation. Prize. Enemy trade. Prize. Prize. 1812. 56. A Spanish subject who came to this country in a time of peace between Spain and Great Britain, to carry on a trade between this country and the Spanish provinces, under a Royal Spanish license, and who continues to reside here and carry on that trade after the breaking out of war between Great Britain and Spain, is to be considered as an American merchant, although the trade could be lawfully carried on by a Spanish subject onlv.-Livingston v. Maryland Insurance Company-7, Cranch, 507. Sup. Court United States, 1813. 57. The national commercial character of a person is to be decided by his domicil, and not by the nature of his trade.id ib. 58. British property found in the United States. on land, at the commencement of hostilities with Great Britain, cannot be condemned as enemy's property, without a legislative act authorizing its confiscation. The act, of the legislature, declaring war, is not such an act.-Brown v. United States -8, Cranch, 110. Sup. Court United States, 1814. 59 After a declaration of war an American citizen cannot lawfully send a vessel to the enemy's country to bring away his property.-The Rapid-8, Cranch, 156. Sup. Court United States. 1814. The Alexander-8, Cranch, 179. Sup. Court United States, 1814. 60. The sailing on a voyage under the license and passport of protection of the enemy, in furtherance of his views or interests, constitutes such an illegality as subjects the ship and cargo to confiscation as prize of war.-The Julia--8, Cranch, 181. Sup. Court United States, 1814. The Aurora-8, Cranch. 203. The Hyram-8, Cranch. 444. 61. It is not necessary, in order to subject the property to License. condemnation for sailing under a license from the enemy, that the person granting the license, should be duly authorised to grant it, provided the person receiving it takes it with the expectation that it will protect his property from the enemy.➡ The Aurora, 8. Cranch, 203. Sup. Court U. S. 1814. Prize. 62. Sailing, with intent to further the views of the enemy, Enemy trade. is sufficient to condemn the property, although that intention be frustrated by capture. id. 63. Sailing with a cargo of provisions to the port of a neutral, who is the ally of our enemy in his war with another power, is such a furtherance of the views of the enemy, as will subject the ship and cargo to condemnation as prize of id. war.-The Hiram-8, Cranch, 444, Sup. Court U. S. 1814. t4. The case of a vessel and cargo belonging to a citizen Salvage. of one belligerent nation, captured on the high seas by a cruizer of the other belligerent. given by the captor to a neutral, Prize. and by him brought into a port and libelled in a court of his own coatry, between which, and the nation to which the vesng mally belonged, war breaks out before final adjudication, is nsidered as a case of salvage. One moiety adjudged Confiscation. Thats, and the other moiety to remain subject to the ler of the court below; and to be restored to the ormal owner after the termination of the war, unless provishold previously be made for the confiscation of enemy's found in the country at the declaration of war.— venture-8, Cranch, 21, Sup. Court, U. S., 181 ́. Tar istrea-1, Wheaton, 12, Sup Court, U. S.. 116. 65. If a citizen of the United States establish his domicil in Prize. a foreign country, between which and the United States hostili ties afterwards break out, any property shipped by such citi. Domicil. S. 18 4. interest. 66. If the option be given to the consignee to take the goods Proprietary to his own account or not, the right of property does not vest Prize. in the consignee until he has made his election. -id. ib. 67. A naturalized citizen, who, in time of peace. returns Prize. to his native country for the purpose of trade but with intention of returning to his adopted country, continuing in the for Domicil. Prize. Proprietary interest. Prize. Domicil. Prize. Proprietary interest. Prize. President's instructions Prize. Enemy trade. id id. mer a year after knowledge of the existence of war between the two countries, for the purpose of winding up his complicated affairs; and engaging in no new commercial transaction whatever with the enemy, and actually returning to his adopted country in a little more than a year after his first knowledge of the war, is to be considered as having gained a domicil in his native country.-And his goods captured during the war, are liable to condemnation.—The Frances (Thompson and al. claimants)—8, Cranch, 335. Sup. Court U S. 1814. 68. Goods, appearing by the Ship's papers to be a consignment from Alien enemies to American merchants, are liable to condemnation, as prize. although further proof was offered that American merchants were jointly interested, and that they had a lien upon the goods, in consequence of advances made by them.—id. ib. 69 The commercial domicil of a merchant at the time of the capture of his goods determines the character of those goods, hostile or neutral.-The Frances (Gillespie's claim)-8 Cranch. Sup. Court U S, 1814. 70. A municipal forfeiture under the laws of the United States is absorbed in the more general operation of the law of war.-The Sally-8, Cranch, 382. Sup. Court U. S 1814. 71. No lien upon enemy's property, by way of pledge for the payment of purchase money. or otherwise, is sufficient to defeat the rights of the captors in a prize court, unless in very peculiar cases, where the lien is imposed by a general law of the mercantile world, independent of any contract between the parties.-The Frances (Irvin's claim)-8, Cranch, 418. Sup. Court US 1814. 72. The President's instruction of 28th of August, 1812, was meant to protect all British merchandise on board an American ship without any exception on account of British proprietary interest.-The Thomas Gibbons-8 Cranch, 421, Sup. Court U. S. 1814. 73. A vessel sailing to an enemy's country after knowledge of the war, and taken bringing from that country a cargo consisting chiefly of enemy-goods, is liable to confiscation as prize of war.— The St. Lawrence-8 Cranch, 434. Sup. Court of the U. S 1814. 74. Trade with the enemy is not excused by the necessity of obtaining funds to pay the expenses of the ship; nor by the opinion of an American minister, expressed to the master, that by undertaking the voyage he would violate no law of the U. S. The Joseph-8 Cranch, 451. Sup. Court U. S. 1814. |