INDEX TO THE PRINCIPAL MATTERS CONTAINED IN THIS VOLUME. ACTION. 2. If there was no reasonable ground of suspicion 4. What degree of arming constitutes an armed 5. The act of 9th of February, 1799, did not au- Little v. Barreme, 170 ALIENS. 1. An American citizen residing in a foreign Murray v. Charming Betsy, 2. Whether a citizen of the United States can de- Murray v. Charming Betsy. 64 4. Whether a person, born in the colony of New MIlvaine v. Coxe's Lessee, 280 APPEAL. 264 406 If apprentices are salvors their masters are not Mason et al. v. Blaireau, 240 1. The lands of a deceased debtor in Georgia are 7. One-third of the gross value of ship and cargo in equity following the assets, it is not necessary 8. One-third of the salvage decreed to the owners 9. If a vessel in distress is abandoned at sea by the 10. If apprentices are salvors, their masters are to resort. ld. 2. A plaintiff may assign for error the want of jurisdiction in that court to which he has chosen 126 3. A party may take advantage of an error in his lb. favor, if it be an error of the court. Id. 4. The courts of admiralty of the United States have jurisdiction in cases of salvage, where all the parties are aliens, if the jurisdiction be not objected to. Mason v. Blaireau, 240 5. Quære, whether the United States courts of common law have jurisdiction where all the parties are aliens? Bailiff v. Tipping, 406 6. The question of forfeiture of a vessel under the act of Congress against the slave trade is of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. 406 United States v. Schooner Sally, 7. The circuit court of the United States for the district of Virginia, has not jurisdiction in cases between citizens of Virginia and citizens of the District of Columbia. Hepburn et al. v. Ellzey, 445 1. The inhabitants of the District of Columbia, by its separation from the states of Virginia and Maryland, ceased to be citizens of those states respectively. Reily v. Lamar et al., 344 2. By the insolvent law of Maryland of 3d of January, 1800, the Chancellor of Maryland could not discharge a citizen of Maryland who resided in the District of Columbia at the time of its separation from Maryland, unless the insolvent had complied with all the requisites of the law, so as to entitle himself to a discharge before that separation. ld. lb. 3. A citizen of the District of Columbia cannot maintain an action against a citizen of Virginia in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Virginia; but a citizen of the district of Virginia may maintain an action against a citizen of the District of Columbia, in the circuit court of the United States for the District of Columbia. Hepburn et al. v. Ellzey, 445 4. A citizen of the District of Columbia is not a citizen of a state, within the meaning of the constitution of the United States. Id. Ib. CONSTITUTION. 2. The report of the assessors ought to state the principles on which it is founded; and not a gross sum without explanation. Id. lb. 3. A commander of a ship of war of the United States, in obeying the instructions of the President of the United States, acts at his peril. If those instructions are not strictly warranted by law, he is answerable in damages to any person injured by their execution. Little v. Barreme, 170 4. Quare, whether probable cause will excuse from damages? Id. 176 The defendant cannot offset bad debts made by the misconduct of the plaintiff, in selling the defendant's goods as factor; the plaintiff not having guaranteed those debts; but such misconduct is pose. Winchester v. Hackley, properly to be inquired into in a suit for that pur FOREIGN LAWS. 1. Foreign laws must be proved as facts. Church v. Hubbart, 342 187, 236 2. The certificate of a consul of the United States under his seal, is not evidence of foreign laws. Id. FORTHCOMING BOND. See Bond, Forthcoming. GEORGIA. lb. Lands of a deceased debtor in Georgia are liable in equity for his debts, without making the heir a 407 party. Telfair v. Stead, ILLICIT TRADE. 126 2. A party may take advantage of an error in his favor, if it be an error of the court. Id. Ib. The right of a nation to seize vessels attempting an illicit trade is not confined to their harbors, or to the range of their batteries. 187 Church v Hubbart, 3. The citation must accompany the writ of error, 406 or it will be dismissed. Bailiff v. Tipping, 4. It is no error that the decree is for pounds, shillings and pence sterling. Telfair v. Stead, 414 5. It is no error that the decree does not apportion the amount among those defendants who have assets, unless it appears that the whole assets in the hands of all the defendants are more than Ib. sufficient to pay the plaintiff's debt. Id. 2. Foreign laws must be proved as facts. They must be verified by oath, or by some other high authority which the law respects not less than an oath. Church v. Hubbart, 187, 236 3. The certificate of a consul of the United States under his seal is not evidence of a foreign law. Id. Ib. 4. The proceedings of a Portuguese court, under the seal of a person who states himself to be Secretary of Foreign Affairs in Portugal, is not eviIb. dence. Id. 5. If the decrees of the courts in the Portuguese colonies are transmitted to the seat of the Portuguese government, and registered in the department of state of that government, a certificate of that fact under the great seal of Portugal, with a copy of the decree authenticated in the same manner, would be sufficient prima facie evidence. Fb. Id. INSURANCE. 1. If the insured make a proposition to the underwriters to cancel a policy, which they reject, and afterwards assent to; but before information of such assent reaches the insured, they hear of the loss of their vessel, such proposition and assent do not in law amount to an agreement to cancel the policy. Head et al. v. Providence Insurance Com127 рапу, 2. If it be inserted in a policy that "the insurers are not liable for seizure by the Portuguese for illicit trade," and the vessel be seized and condemned by the Portuguese for an attempt to trade illicitly, the underwriters are not liable for the loss. Church v. Hubbart, 187 3. An exclusion of the risk of seizure for illicit 236 trade, means, of a lawful seizure. Church v. Hubbart, 4. A detention at sea to save a vessel in distress is such a deviation as discharges the underwriters. Mason v. Blaireau, 268, 269 66 as 5. A policy in the name of one joint owner property may appear," (without the clause stating the insurance to be for the benefit of all concerned,) does not cover the interest of another joint owner. Graves et al. v. Boston Marine Insurance Company, 419 339 2. A plaintiff may assign for error the want of jurisdiction in that court to which he has chosen to resort. Capron v. Van Noorden, 126 3. The courts of admiralty of the United States have jurisdiction in cases of salvage where all the parties are aliens, if the jurisdiction is not objected to. Mason v. Blaireau, 240 4. Quare, whether the common law courts of the United States have jurisdiction where all the parties are aliens? Bailiff v. Tipping, 406 5. The question of forfeiture of a vessel under the act of Congress against the slave trade, is a question of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. United States v. Schooner Sally, 1. If there was no reasonable ground of suspicion that the vessel was trading contrary to law, the commander of a United States ship of war, who seizes and sends her in, is liable for damages. Murray v. Charming Betsy, 64 2. Quere, what degree of arming constitutes an armed vessel? Id. Ib. 3. A commanding officer of a ship of war of the United States is not justitied by the instructions of the President of the United States, if those instructions are not warranted by law; but is answerable in damages to any person injured by his execution of those instructions. Little v. Barreme, NEW JERSEY. 170 Quere, whether a person born in the colony of New Jersey before the revolution, and who resided there until the year 1777, but who then joined the British army in Philadelphia, and afterwards went to England, where he has ever since resided, and 406 who has always claimed to be a British subject, can 6. A citizen of the District of Columbia cannot now take and hold lands in the state of New Jersey maintain an action against a citizen of Virginia in by descent from a citizen of the United States? the circuit court of the United States for the Vir- Whether by the act of the state of New Jersey, of ginia district. Hepburn v. Ellzey, October 4, 1776, he became a member of the new government against his will? Whether he could expatriate himself after the peace? And, if expatriated, whether he became thereby completely an alien to all inter ts and purposes? M'Ilvaine v. Core's Lessee, LANDS. See Georgia. New Jersey. LAW. See Legislative power. LAWS, FOREIGN. See Foreign Laws. LEGISLATIVE POWER. 445 280 1. A policy in the name of one joint owner, a8 property may appear," (without the clause stating the insurance to be for the benefit of all concerned,) does not cover the interest of another joint owner. Graves et al. v. Boston Marine Insurance Company, 419 in evidence on an averment of individual interest, 2. The interest of a copartnership cannot be given nor will the averment of copartnership interest be supported by a special contract relating to the interest of an individual. Id. PAYMENT. See Evidence, 1. |