Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

if all the belligerents are in this respect put upon an equal footing. Bee, 263-Consul of Spain v. Consul of G. Britain, C. C., South Carolina.

406. The sale of a prize in a port not belonging to the cap- Admiralty. tors, before condemnation, does not divest the property of the

original owner.

Bee, 300-Rose v. Himely, District Court,

South Carolina, 1804.

Prize.

Prize.

407. Neutral courts have no jurisdiction of the question of Admiralty. prize as between the belligerents. Bee, 66-Reid v The Neutrals. Vere, District Court South Carolina.

408. The courts of admiralty in this country will maintain Admiralty. a suit for damages happening to a vessel in the hands of the Prize. captor, after a decree of restitution in a foreign court. Bee, 60-McGrath v. Sloop Candalero, Dis. Court, S Car., 1794. 409. Under the treaty with France, a French armed ship Treaty. French treaty. duty commissioned, but fitted out in an American port, might bring in and carry away her prizes, without being subject to the courts of this country. Bee, 40-Stannick v. The Friendship, District Court, S. Car., 1794. Id. 69-British Consul v. The Mermaid, Dis. Court, South Carolina, 1795.

Treaty.

410. In such case the court can only interfere where the equipment of the privateer in the neutral port, contravenes French treaty. the laws of neutrality. Bee, 40—Salderondo v. The Nostra Signora. District Court, South Carolina, 1794.

Neutrals.

411. An augmentation of force in an American port, is a Admiralty. breach of neutrality, and of the law of nations, as well as of Neutrals. the laws of the United States; and a prize captured by such of nations. a vessel must be restored if brought within the jurisdiction of

our courts.

Bee, 73-British Consul v. The Nancy, District

Court, South Carolina, 1795.

Prize.

412. A condemnation of captured goods in a court of com- Admiralty. petent jurisdiction, is absolutely necessary before the proper- Prize ty can be divested out of the original owner. 1 Bay, 470Sasportas v. Jennings, Court of Common Pleas, S. C., 1795.

413. A condemnation, in a French Court of Admiralty, of Admiralty. property lying in the ports of an ally, cannot be enquired into prize. by the courts of this country. Bee, 163-Sheaff v. Goods, Neutrals. &c., District Court, South Carolina, 1800.

Prize.

414. A sentence of condemnation founded on a municipal Admiralty. regulation, not made until after the capture of the property on the high seas, is not final and conclusive, and the property may be restored to the original owners, if brought within the jurisdiction of the courts of their own county. Bee, 308Rose v. Himely. District court, South Carolina, 1805.

Admiralty.
Foreign sen-

tence.

Law of nations.

Admiralty. Foreign sentence.

Admiralty.

Foreign

415 If a foreign court of admiralty condemn a vessel as lawful prize, or as the property of an enemy generally, without assigning any reasons, the law of nations will presume that they have gone upon proper grounds, and their sentence is conclusive on all the world. 2 Bay, 237— ampbell v. Williamson, C. C., South Carolina, 1800.

416. But where the ground of the sentence is uncertain, the truth may be examined, as where the vessel was libelled Law of nations. as enemy's property, and condemned for breach of blockade. 2 Bay, 563-Blacklock v. Stewart, C. C., S. Car., 1802. 417. A sentence of condemnation is not conclusive if it do not state sufficient grounds. 2 Bay, S88 Williamson v. Law of nations. Tunno, Circuit Court South Carolina. 418. A condemnation as prize is not a condemnation as enemy's property, so as to conclude the assured. 1, Jott and McCord 541, in note-Bailey v. South Carolina Insurance Company, C. C. South Carolina.

sentence.

Evidence.

Foreign

sentence. Evidence.

Foreign

sentence.

Evidence.

Aliens.

Aliens.

Aliens.

Aliens.

Aliens.

Aliens.

1869.

1802.

419. In an action on a policy of insurance, a condemnation as enemy's property, by a foreign Court of admiralty is conclusive evidence of a breach of neutrality. 1, Nott and McCord 537, Groning v. Union Insurance Company, C. C South Carolina, 1819.

420. The title, of an alien friend, to lands in Maryland, is good against every body but the state, and can only be devested by office found, or by some act done by the state to take possession; and his chattels real vest in his representa tives. 4, Har. and McHenry, 409-McCreery v Alexander, Gen. Court maryland. 1799.

421. In North Carolina, an alien cannot take lands by devise. 2 Haywood. 104--University v.. 2 do. 108--Gilmour v. Kay.

422. In North Carolina, the title to lands purchased by an alien continues in him until office found. 2 Haywood, 37, Doe v. Horniblea.

423. An alien cannot maintain ejectment; but if he is in possession of real property he may maintain trespass quare clausum fregit. 1 Hayw, 485-Bayes v. Hogg.

424. A foreigner naturalized in a state before the adoption of the Federal Constitution, and who continued to reside there nntil that event, became thereby a citizen of the United States. 2 Car. Law Repository, 112-Teare v. White, Sup. Court North Carolina. 1815.

425. Where a father has been a citizen of the United States his children are entitled to inherit lands in South Carolina,

though born out of the limits of the United States.-Aliter of the child of a citizen mother by an alien father. 1 Nott and McCord, 292- Davis v. Hall C. C. South Carolina. 1818.

426. By an act of South Carolina, of 1807, a grant of land Aliens. to an alien is valid, provided he has declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States agreeably to the act of congress. 1 Rep. Con. C. 411—Meeks v. Richbourg.

427 A subject of Great Britain, though born before the Aliens declaration of Independence, is an alien and incapable of holding lands in South Carolina, although he may take by purchase. 4 Dess. 330-Clifton, v Haig, Court Chancery, South Carolina. 1812.

428. The husband of an alien female who had given notice Aliens. of her intention to become a citizen and had taken the oath, but who died before she was duly naturalized, was held to be incapable of inheriting, through her, lands in South Carolina. 1 McCord 187-McDaniel v. Richards, C. C. South Carolina 1821.

429. Aliens cannot take lands by descent in Kentucky. Aliens. Harding, 61-Hunt v. Warnicke. 1806.

430. A person deriving title to lands in Kentucky, in virtue Aliens. of the act of 1800, under an alien claiming by descent, must show, on the trial, that such alien was 2 years in the country previous to the death of the ancestor. 1 Litt. 149-Trustees of Louisville v. Gray. 1822.

431. After the ratification of the articles of confederation, an alien who became a citizen of any one of the United States, became thereby a citizen of Virginia, so as to be able to hold lands. 3 Litt. 476-Elmendorf v. Carnichael, Court Appeals, Kentucky. 1825.

432. A condemnation, by a court of admiralty of prizes, brought into the port of an ally, is valid. 15 Johns. Rep. 172-Page v. Lenox, Sup C N. Y. 1818.

Aliens.

Admiralty.

Prize

433. No action can be maintained at common law for an Prize. illegal capture, on the high seas, as prize of war; and no irreg ularity or misconduct of the captor, in the subsequent disposition of the prize, can confer jurisdiction as to the original taking, or is, in itself, a ground of action at common law. 16 Johns. Rep. 327--Novion v. Hallet, C. Errors, N. I. 1819.

434. An alien may take lands by devise in Massachusetts. Aliens. The 9th article of the Treaty of 1794 with Great Britain, Treaty British was not annulled by the war of 1812. That article applied,

as well to vested remainders as to estates in possession. Mass. 143--Fox v. Southack, Sup. C. Mass. 1815.

12

Aliens.

Treaty British.

Aliens.

Aliens. War.

Aliens.

Aliens.

Aliens.

435. Alienage cannot be pleaded in bar: it must always be pleaded in abatement. 9 Mass. 863-Lewall v. Lee, Sup. court, Mass. 1812 Il. 377--Martin v. Wood, Sup. court, Mass. 1812. 12 do. 8--Levine v. Taylor, Sup. court, Mass. 1815.

436. The treaty of 1794, with Great Britain, does not prevent or cure the disability of a British subject as an Alien Enemy.

The plea of Alien Enemy is a temporary disability only which ceases with the war. The effect of the plea is only to suspend the process; and the plea is defective when it concludes either in bar or in abatement of the writ.The form is a prayer whether the Plaintiff should be further answered. 11 Mass. 19--Hutchinson v. Brock, Sup. court, Mass. 1814. 437 Aliens resident in the United States, at the breaking out of a war. between their own country and the United States, or who come to reside in the United States, after the breaking out of such war, under an express or implied permission, may sue as in time of peace; and it is not necessary for that purpose, that such aliens should have letters of safe conduct, or actual license to remain in the United States; but a license and protection will be implied from their being suffered to remain without being ordered out of the United States by the Executive. 10 Johns. 69—Clarke v. Morey, Sup. court

N. Y. 1813.

43. An officer of the British army who was detained in the State of New York as a prisoner of war until December 1776, when he returned to England and died in 1800, never became a citizen of New York, but remained a British subject, and by reason of his alienage could not take lands by descent in 1792. 20 Johns. 313-Jackson v White, Sup. court, N. F. 1822.

459. The declaration of Independence did not operate so completely to disunite the United States from England, as to subject all British antenati to the disabilities of alienage. Their rights continued until the acknowledgement by Great Britain of ur Independence. 2 Hals. 305--Den. v. Brown, Sup. court, N. Jersey, 1799.

440. The 4th §. of the act of Congress of 1802, which provides that the children of citizens of the United States, born abroad, shall be citizens of the United States, applies to those only whose parents were citizens of a state, as such, after the Union had commenced, and not parents born in a state. when a colony, before the adoption of the constitution. 16 Mass. 230-Manchester v. Boston, Sup. court, Mass. 1819.

441. The whole personal estate of an alien enemy dying in Aliens. New York during the war, goes exclusively to his next of kin resident in New York, to the exclusion of such as were then resident in the enemy's country. 13 Johns. 1 Bradwell v. Weeks, court of Errors, N. York, 1815. 1 Johns. chancery Reports, 206 Couth Carolina, contra. 814.

Evidence.

442. When debt is brought on a foreign judgment rendered Foreign judgments. by default, the Court will go into the consideration of such judgment, and if it appear that it was surreptitiously obtained, they will not sustain it 1 Tyler, 237-Waddams v Burnham Cuperior Court. Vermont.

1801.

sente: ce.

443. When a foreign judgment is produced in the Courts of Foreign Massachusetts, if the court which rendered the judgment had jurisdiction, the regularity of its proceedings cannot be called Evidence. in question. In an action of debt upon such judgment nil Freight debet is the general issue. 9 Massachusetts, Rep. 462— Bissel v. Briggs, Superior Court, Massachusetts.

1813.

Judgments.

Foreign judg

444. In an action on a foreign judgment it is competent for the defendant to avoid it by showing that he was not within ment. the jurisdiction of the foreign court. 8 Massachusetts, Rep. Evidence. 273-Buttrick v. Allen, Supreme Court, Massachusetts. 1811.

445. A decree of a foreign court of admiralty made without Foreign libel or trial, condemning a vessel and cargo for breach of block- sentence. ade, is not conclusive of that fact. 12 Massachusetts Rep. 291- Evidence. Sawyer v. Maine, F. and M. Insurance Company, Supreme Court, Massachusetts. 1815.

sentence.

446. The sentence of a foreign Court of admiralty is con- Foreign clusive only when it distinctly and specially states the cause of condemnation. 8, Massachusetts, Rep. 5 6—Robinson v. Jones, Supreme Court, Massachusetts. 181.

Evidence.

447. The cause of action for a balance due to a factor arises Aliens. in the country in which the factor resides. 15 Massachusetts, Rep. 427-Coolidge v. Poor, Sup. Court, Mass. 1818.

laws.

448. Contracts are to be construed by the lex loci con- Lex loci. tractus unless, it appears from their tenor that they were Foreign entered into with a view to the laws of another place. 3 Conn Rep. 253-Smith v. Mead, Sup. Court Errors, Connecticut. 1820.

449. Rights dependent upon nuptial contracts are to be determined by the lex loci contractus. 3 Johns C. R. 190— Deconche v. Savetier, Court of Chancery, N. Y. 819

Lex loci.

450. It is the law and usage of nations, resting on the plain- Aliens. Fugitives from est principles of justice and public utility, to deliver up offen- justice. ders charged with felony aud other high crimes, and fleeing

« ZurückWeiter »