her departure from Melbourne on the eighteenth day of February in the year eighteen hundred and sixty-five.

Argument on the demurrer was had at the final hearing of the cause. Mr. H. H. Wells, for the complainant, contended that the claim was for a loss directly resulting from damage caused by the Shenandoah, and was within the jurisdiction of the court, citing the eleventh section of the act of June 23, 1874, and the following authorities: Waters vs. Merchants' Louisville Insurance Co., 11 Peters, 213; David C. Magoun vs. New England Marine Insurance Co., 1 Story, 157; 1 Phillips on Insurance, sec. 1132, page 677, 5th edition, 1867; Thomson vs. Hopper, 1 Ellis, Blackburn & Ellis, 1038; Hahn vs. Corbet, 2 Bing., 205; Patrick vs. Commercial Insurance Co., 11 Johnson, 9; Peters vs. Warren Insurance Co., 14 Peters, 99; Insurance Co. vs. Tweed, 7 Wallace, 44; Dole vs, New England Mutual Insurance Co., 2 Clifford 394; Voss vs. United Insurance Co., 2 Johnson's Cases, 180; Luckley vs. Delafield, 2 Caine's Cases, 222; American Insurance Co, vs. Dunham & Wadsworth, 12 Wendell, 463; Havelock vs. Hansell, 3 Term Reports, 277; Grim vs. Phoenix Insurance Co., 13 Johnson, 451; Montoya et. al. vs. London Assurance Co., 4 Eng. Law and Eq., 500; Savage vs. Pleasants, 5 Binn, 403; Coolidge vs. New York Fireman's Insurance Co., 14 Johnson, 308.

Mr. John A. J. Creswell, counsel on behalf of the United States,

contra.

The court dismissed the petition.

Ann Eliza Gannett, administratrix of the estate of Abraham Osborn, deceased, vs. The United States, No. 1321: The following allegations were made in the petition: Complainants were owners of the ship Mary, of Edgartown, which cleared the 18th of June, 1861, for a whaling-voyage of five years in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans and elsewhere. In November, 1863, the master, to escape the confederate cruiser Alabama, ran into Singapore, and, being blockaded there, shipped his oil on a British ship to England. This was valued in Singapore, as shipped, at $36,852, gold, but netted the owners (in gold) at home, (through England,) only $9,990, making a loss, in gold, of $26,862, which sum was claimed. This claim was dismissed, together with others similar to it in principle.

In the case of Samuel Osborn, jr., et al., vs. The United States, No. 787, the following allegations were made in the petition: That the whale-ship Almira, in the summer of 1865, was fitted out to pursue the while-fishing in the Pacific Ocean for a voyage of four years, and proceeded to the Arctic Ocean. While there she was "pursued by the rebel cruiser Shenandoah, with the purpose of capturing and destroying her; and she was compelled to leave said fishing-grounds, and then and thereafter prevented by said rebel cruiser from returning to said fishing grounds for a period of more than two months; that, when so compelled to leave, the preparations which had been made and the work which had already been done promised a most successful season's catch." The owners claimed the value of the season's catch so lost.

This claim and others similar to it were dismissed by the court, after extended argument.

The gross amount claimed in this class of cases is estimated at $2,000,000, not including interest.

BONDED VESSELS.

(See In re ships James Maury, General Pike, Milo, and the bark Nile,

Moses Hyneman vs. The United States, No. 643; William Phillips vs. The United States; In re bark Richmond, 1228, reported below.)

The brig Baron de Castine on the 20th October, 1862, sailed from Ban gor, Maine, with a cargo of lumber, bound for Cardenas, Cuba. On the 30th October she was captured by the Alabama, bonded in the sum of $4,000 on the brig and $2,000 on the cargo, and forty-four prisoners were put on board of her. The brig was obliged to make for Boston, the nearest port, where she arrived on the 2d November. She was detained at Boston about ten days making repairs, when she proceeded to Cardenas.

The brig at the time of capture was sailing under a charter binding her to take a cargo of lumber from Bangor to Cardenas, returning to New York with a cargo of merchandise, thirty lay-days being allowed to receive and discharge cargo; the compensation agreed to being $2,250, currency, and foreign port-charges paid.

Counsel for complainants, Mr. Alexander P. Morse, contended that damages should be estimated by accepting the value of the charterparty, allowing its full value, less any indemnity or compensation paid complainants in consideration thereof. (Rogers vs. Beard, 36 Barbour, 31; 20 Howard, Pr. Reports, 102.)

If this basis of compensation should not be accepted by the court, counsel claimed indemnity, to be estimated as follows, viz, by computing the number of days lost by capture and multiplying it by a figure representing a fair compensation on that account.

That an allowance should be made also for provisions consumed and other actual expenses consequent upon the capture. (McAfee vs. Crof ford, 13 How., 447; 6 Bingham, 716; No. 19, Eng. L. R., 215, et seq.; Sedgwick on Damages, pp. 57, 63, (note,) 69, 99.)

Judgment was entered in favor of the complainants. No opinion was delivered. From a comparision of the amounts claimed and awarded, it appears that the court calculated damages in accordance with the second basis of computation suggested by counsel.

In the case of the bark Justina, it appeared that while on a voyage from Rio de Janeiro to Baltimore, she was captured and bonded. Nineteen prisoners were placed on board, and the master was ordered to and did proceed to Baltimore, without stopping at any intermediate port; that the Justina was in ballast, and but for the capture would have stopped at the West Indies for a cargo to Baltimore.

Complainants claimed the passage-money of the nineteen men, at $100, gold, each, amounting in currency to $2,750.25, the value of one crate of bananas, taken by the crew of the Alabama, $25, and the value of the vessel for freighting purposes during the time she was under bond, viz, thirty-six days, at $75 a day, amounting to $2,700; the total amount claimed being $5,475.25.

The court awarded $1,425, with the usual interest. The amount of the judgment can be reached by allowing passage-money at $2 and a small fraction per day per man for the prisoners on board for the thirty-six days they were on the vessel, adding the value of the crate of bananas.

NET FREIGHTS.

(See Hubbell vs. The United States; Buck & Spofford et al. vs. The United States, reported below; Charles L. Colby vs. The United States, No. 1187, supra.

The complainants in case No. 1942, William Johnston Taylor et al. vs.

The United States, were the owners of the steamship Electric Spark, which sailed July 9, 1864, on a voyage from New York to New Orleans and return under charter of the New York Mail Steamship Company. The vessel was destroyed by the Florida on the 10th July, 1864. The complainants recovered the value of the vessel and outward freight in another petition and now claimed the value of the return freight and passage-money, it being shown that the vessel was engaged full of passengers and freight for the return-trip by the agent at New Orleans of the New York Mail Steamship Company.

The compensation to the owners of the vessel, under the charter, was to be the freight and passage-money less a commission to the New York Mail Steamship Company.

Mr. Throckmorton for complainants contended that an allowance for the return freight and passage-money should be made under the decision in Buck & Spofford et al. vs. The United States.

The court ruled that the engagement of the freight and passage-money by the New York Mail Steamship Company's agent did not establish such privity of contract with the owners of the vessel as to enable them to recover therefor, the vessel having been destroyed before arrival at the port where the freight and passage-money was engaged.

INJURIES TO THE PERSON.

(See Martha Noyes Williams vs. The United States; William H. Whiting vs. The United States; Lawrence M. Brown vs. The United States, reported below.)

Several claimants asked indemnity for injury to the health, occasioned by the exposure, fright, and suffering consequent upon the capture, or by harsh treatment after capture, while on board one of the so-called insurgent cruisers. These claims were demurred to, and the demurrer was sustained.

CRUISERS NOT INCLUDED IN THE ACT.

Several claims were presented to the court for loss of property destroyed by cruisers other than the Alabama, Florida, and their tenders, and the Shenandoah after she left Melbourne. These claims were all dismissed by the court as not within its jurisdiction.

WAR-PREMIUM CASES.

Several petitions were filed setting forth that certain moneys were paid to insurance companies for insurance on property against destruction by the so-called insurgent cruisers, and claiming indemnity for the money so paid. The property insured was not destroyed. The court dismissed these cases apparently on the ground that the loss did not directly result from damage caused by the inculpated cruisers. The amount claimed in these cases was not definitely stated, but is estimated at $550,000, not including interest.

INSURANCE COMPANIES.

Six claims of insurers, corporate or private, were allowed by the court, the aggregate of the judgments being $111,055.23, not including interest. All of these claimants alleged and proved not only that they suffered losses by the acts of the inculpated cruisers, but that their losses

in the business growing out of war-risks was greater than the aggregate of their premiums and other gains growing out of war-risks taken. (Commercial Mutual Marine and other Insurance Co.'s vs. The United States, post.)

In the case of the President and Directors of the Insurance Company of North America vs. The United States, No. 1342, no such allegation of net loss on the business growing out of war-risks was made, and the petition was dismissed.

CONTESTED CLAIMS.

Counsel in several cases contended that this court was a court of the United States, with full power to compel contending claimants to interplead. For the decision of the court on this question see the cases of William J. Taylor and Agnes C. MacLeane, administratrix, vs. The United States, post.

In one case where certain claims made by counsel were not allowed, the court delivering no opinion, but the disallowance being apparent from the judgment, counsel requested the court to state its ruling on the points of law involved, contending that it was a court of the United States, and that an appeal from its rulings lay to the Supreme Court.

The motion was not allowed.

WAGES AND EXPENSES OF SEAMEN.

It appears that the court allowed wages to seamen for the time shown to have elapsed from the destruction of the vessel to the date when employment was next secured, not exceeding in any case one year. The wages, up to the date of destruction, appear not to have been allowed, as the seamen have their remedy for this loss against the owners.

The actual expenses of seamen in returning home, or to the place where they next secured employment, appear to have been allowed.

Seamen on whaling-vessels generally sailed under an agreement to receive from the owners as compensation a proportion of the proceeds of the catch of the vessels. For the judgment of the court in these cases, see Catch, supra.

TITLE TO PERSONAL PROPERTY AS BETWEEN CONSIGNOR AND CONSIGNEE.

Homer & Sprague vs. The United States, No. 840, Spark. It appeared from the evidence in this case that the complainants were, on the 19thɔ January, 1863, doing business as commission-merchants in Boston, under the firm and style of Homer & Sprague. That Venicia, Rodriquez & Co. were Spanish subjects, carrying on business as merchants and planters in Manzanillo, in the island of Cuba; that for years they had shipped merchandise to Homer & Sprague, as, their factors and consignees; that a regular account-current had been stated at the end of every year, showing an indebtedness, varying in amount from year to year, from said Venicia, Rodriquez & Co. to said Homer & Sprague; that the balance due to Homer & Sprague only thirty days before the destruction of the Estelle amounted to $138,373.34; that this balance of indebtedness had accumulated on the promise of consignments of produce; that on the 12th day of January, 1863, said Venicia, Rod. riquez & Co. shipped on board the Estelle, from Santa Cruz to Boston, an invoice, mainly of sugar and molasses, of the cost-value in gold of

$11,270.55, and at the same time forwarded to Homer & Sprague an invoice and bill of lading, making the goods deliverable to them; that this shipment was made in the general course of credit and payment spoken of; that the same was shipped as the property of said Venicia, Rodriquez & Co., and on their account; that on the 19th of January, 1863, the Estelle, with her cargo, was captured and burnt by the confederate cruiser, the Florida. Per curiam: The complainants, Homer & Sprague, consignees of Venicia, Rodriquez & Co., are entitled to judg ment for the amount of the invoice and bill of lading.

Rayner, J., filed an opinion concurring with the court on different grounds.

Wells, P. J., dissented.

RIGHT OF ASSIGNEE TO RECOVER.

Osgood and Stetson claimed the value of merchandise owned by Dimon Hubbard, and destroyed by the so-called insurgent cruisers.

The claim was made under an assignment to complainants from Hubbard, made and filed in the Department of State, before the organization of this court. Hubbard also filed a petition claiming indemnity for the same losses and moved that the claims be heard and decided together. This motion was denied and Hubbard's petition dismissed,

In this case and in Taylor and MacLeane's cases, the court seems in substance to have held

1st. That the assignment settled the legal title in the claim in the assignee.

2d. That its judgment should be for the party holding the legal title. 3d. That it could not adjudicate the rights of parties setting up equi ties in respect of the claim.

MEASURE OF DAMAGE.

(See George B. Upton, jr., et al. vs. The United States, supra; Henry W. Hubbell vs. The United States, post; Wages and expenses of seamen, supra; Catch, supra; Net freight, supra; Prospective freights, gains, and advantages, supra.)

NATIONAL LOSSES.

(See George M. Robeson, Secretary of the Navy, vs. The United States, post.)

A claim was presented by the Secretary of the Navy for the loss of the Hatteras, a vessel of war, sunk by the Alabama, and for the loss of the Greenland, a vessel chartered by the Navy Department as a transport, and destroyed by the Florida. The Department having assumed the risk of her destruction by one of the so-called insurgent cruisers, was obliged to pay her owners for the loss. This was the only claim presented for losses sustained by the Government, and it was dismissed.

CLAIMS OF NAVAL OFFICERS.

(See Butman vs. The United States, and other claims, post.) The claimants were officers of the Hatteras, and filed claims for property destroyed on that vessel. These claims were allowed; Rayner, judge, dissenting.