1. If a writ of error be served before the return
term; and the appearance of the defendant in error
waives all objection to the irregularity of the re-
turn. Wood v. Lide,

180

copy thereof for the adverse party in the office of
2. The service of a writ of error is the lodging a
the clerk of the court where the judgment was
rendered. Wood v. Lide.

3. See Appeal, 4.

180

Cranch 4.

ABANDONMENT-4.

1. The capture of a neutral as prize by a bel-
ligerent, is a total loss, and entitles the insured to
abandon.

Rhinelander v. In. Cò. Pennsylvania, (29) 540
2. The state of the loss at the time of the offer to
abandon fixes the rights of the parties.

Id.

(lb.) 540
3. The right of the assured to abandon and re-
cover for a total loss, depends upon the state of the
fact at the time of the offer to abandon, and not
upon the state of the information received.
(202) 596
4. The technical total loss arising from capture,
ceases with the final decree of restitution; although
that decree may not have been executed at the
time of the offer to abandon. lb.
(203) 596
5. If at the time of the offer to abandon, the ship
be in possession of the master, in good condition,
and at full liberty to proceed on the voyage, the
loss of the cargo will not authorize the owner of
the vesser to recover for a total loss of the vessel.
Alexander v. Baltimore In. Co. (871) 650

Marshall v. Delaware In. Co.

2. If an account stated be pleaded in bar to a bill
in equity, such plea will be sustained, except so far
as the complainant shall show it to be erroneous.
Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, (306) 629

3. The court will notice only those errors in the
report of auditors which appear upon the face of
the report, or those expressly set down in the ex-
ceptions; and then the evidence on which the
items were allowed must appear on the record.
ld.
(308) 630

ACKNOWLEDGMENT-1

A deed of lands in Maryland, signed, sealed and
-delivered on the 30th of May, and acknowledged
on the 14th of June, is to be considered as made on
the 30th of May; and its acknowledgement, on the
14th of June, will not cause it to be such a deed as
is contemplated in the bankrupt act, which came
into operation on the 2d of June, 1800.
Wood v. Owings,

(239) 94

1. In Virginia it is not always necessary to sue the
maker of a promissory note, to entitle the holder
to an action against the indorser.
Clarke v. Young,
(181) 74

2. If a promissory note of a third person be in-
dorsed, by the purchaser of goods, to the vendor,
as a conditional payment for the goods, quere,
whether the vendor is, in any case, obliged to sue
the maker of the note before he can resort to the
purchaser of the goods on the original contract of
sale. Id.
(193) 78

3. A suit against the defendant as indorser of the
note, and a suit against him for the goods sold, are
upon distinct and different causes of action; and
the first cannot be pleaded in bar of the second.

ld.

(193) 78
4. It is not necessary for the plaintiff to offer to
return the note, to entitle him to an action for the
goods sold. Clarke v. Young,
(194) 79
5. In Virginia, an action will not lie by the holder
against a remote indorser of a promissory note.
(290) 112

Mandeville v. Riddle,

6. Quere, whether the holder of a promissory note
in Virginia cannot maintain an action for money
had and received, against a remote indorser?
Dunlop v. Silver, (Appendix)
(367) 139
7. Can he for whose benefit a promise is made to a
third person, maintain an action against the prom-
isor? Id.

(429) 164

8. Letters of administration from the Orphans'
Court in the District of Columbia, are necessary to
enable an administrator to maintain an action in
the courts of the district.
Fenwick v. Sears,

ACTION-2.

(259) 101

tain an action for the whole in his own name.
Harris v. Johnston,

(311) 450
3. An action for money had and received will not
lie for the United States against the assignees of a
bankrupt, for the price of a ship sold by them as
the property of the bankrupt who had taken a false
oath to obtain a register; the ship not having been
seized by the United States for the forfeiture be-
fore the sale and transfer.

United States v. Grundy & Thornburgh, (337) 459
4. Quare, whether an action for money had and
received will lie to establish a forfeiture for an act
committed by a third person? Id. (Ib.) 459

1. Salvage allowed to a ship of war of the United
States for the recapture of a Hamburgh vessel out
of the hands of the French (France and Hamburgh
being neutral to each other), on the ground that
she was in danger of condemnation under the
French arret of 18th January, 1798.

Talbot v. Seeman,

(1) 15
2. To support a demand for salvage, the recap-
ture must be lawful, and a meritorious service
must be rendered. Id.
(28) 24
3. Probable cause is sufficient to render the re-
capture lawful. Id.
(31) 25
4. Where the amount of salvage is not regulated
by positive law, it must be determined by principles
of general law. Id.
(44) 29
5. Marine ordinances of foreign countries, pro-
mulgated by the executive by order of the legisla-
ture of the United States, may be read in the
courts of the United States, without further au-
thentication or proof. Quare, whether they may
not be read without such promulgation?
Id.
(38) 27
6. Municipal laws of foreign countries are gener-
ally to be proved as facts. Id.
(15.) 27
7. To entitle to salvage, in cases of recapture, it
is not necessary that the means used should be
with that sole view. Id.
(36, 41) 26-28

8. The rule that salvage is not due for the recap-
ture of a neutral, is founded on the fact that no
benefit has been conferred. Id.
(37) 27
9. To entitle to salvage, it is not necessary that
the destruction of the thing would have been inev-
itable but for the means used to save it; but the
danger must be real and imminent. Id. (42,43) 28
10. Salvage does not imply a contract.
Id.
(lb.) 28
11. France and the United States were in a state
of partial war in the year 1799. Id.
(31) 25
12. The Supreme Court of the United States, in
cases of appeal, and on writs of error, are limited
to the statement of facts made in the court below
Id.
(38) 27
13. A final condemnation in an inferior court of
admiralty, where a right of appeal exists, and has
been claimed, is not a definitive condemnation,
within the meaning of the 4th article of the con-
vention with France, signed September 30th, 1800.
United States v. Peggy,
(103) 49

ADMIRALTY-2.

1. An American vessel sold in a Danish island to
a person who was born in the United States, but
who had bona fide become a burgher of that island,
and sailing from thence to a French island in June,
1800, with a new cargo purchased by her new
owner, and under the Danish flag, was not liable
to seizure under the non-intercourse law of 27th
February, 1800.

Murray v. Charming Betsey.

(64) 208
2. If there was no reasonable ground of sus-
picion 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.
ld.
(Ib.) 208
3. The report of assessors appointed by the Court
of Admiralty to assess damages, ought to state the
principles on which it is founded, and not a gross
sum without explanation. Id.
(lb.) 208
4. What degree of aming constitutes an armed
vessel. ld.
(lb.) 208

5. The act of 9th of February, 1799, did not au-
thorize the seizure upon the high seas of any vessel
sailing from a French port.
Little v. Barreme,
(170) 243
6. The right of a nation to seize vessels attempt-
ing an illicit trade, is not confined to their harbors,
or to the range of their batteries.
Church v. Hubbart,

(187) 249

7. One-third of the gross value of ship and cargo
given for salvage.
(240) 266

Mason et al. v. ship Blaireau,

8. One-third of the salvage decreed to the owners
of the saving ship and cargo. Id.
(Ib.) 266.

9. If a vessel in distress is abandoned at sea by
the master and all the crew, except one man who
is left by design or accident, he is discharged from
his contract as mariner of that vessel, and entitled
to salvage. Id.

(268) 275-

10. If apprentices are salvors, their masters are
not entitled to their share of the salvage, but it
shall be paid to the apprentices themselves. Id. 240
11. The admiralty courts of the United States
have jurisdiction in cases of salvage where all the
parties are aliens, if the jurisdiction be not ob-
jected to. Id.
(264) 274

12. The question of forfeiture of a vessel under
the act of Congress against the slave trade, is of
admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.
United States v. Schooner Sally,

ADMIRALTY-4.

(406) 320

1. The owner of a privateer, capturing neutral
property, is not liable to a decrce of restitution,
unless the property, or its proceeds, came to his
hands.
Jennings v. Carson, (2) 531
2. The district courts of the United States are
courts of prize; and have power to carry into effect
the sentences of the old continental courts of an-
peal in prize causes.
(lb.) 531

3. In all proceedings in rem, the court has a right
to order the thing to be taken into the custody of
the law: and it is presumed to be in the custody of
the law unless the contrary appears.

Jennings v. Carson,

(Ib. 531
4. The thing does not follow the appeal into the
superior court; but remains in the court below;
which has a right to order it to be sold, if perish-
able, notwithstanding the appeal.
(lb) 531

5. If the captor fails to libel the captured vessel,
the owner may claim her in a court of admiralty.
Id.
(23) 538
6. The practice of the district courts of the
United States as courts of admiralty, is not regn-
lated by law. Id.
(24) 538
7. A vessel libeled is always in possession of the
law.
(Ib) 538.
8. If a court cannot, consistently with the law of
nations, exercise the jurisdiction it has assumed.
its sentence is to be disregarded.
(241) 608
9. Every sentence of condemnation by a com-
petent court, having jurisdiction over the subject
matter of its judgment, is conclusive as to the title
claimed under it. Id.
(Ib) 608

Rose v. Himely,

10. A seizure of a foreign vessel beyond the limits
of the territorial jurisdiction, for breach of a mu-
nicipal regulation, is not warranted by the law of
nations, and cannot give jurisdiction to the courts
of the offended country; especially if the property
seized be never carried within its territorial juris-
diction. Id.
(242) 608

11. Quare, whether a French court can, consist-
ently with the law of nations and the treaty, con-
demn American property, never carried into the
dominions of France, and while lying in a port of
the United States. Id.
(243) 609

12. An American vessel seized by the French for
breach of a municipal law of France, and carried
into a Spanish port, may, while lying there, be law-
fully condemned by a French tribunal sitting in a
French port. Hudson v. Guestier. (293) 625

13. The possession of the sovereign of the captors
gives jurisdiction to his courts. Id. (294) 625
14. The possession of the captors in a neutral
port, is the possession of their sovereign.
Id.

(lb.) 625
15. If the possession be lost by recapture, or es
cape, or voluntary discharge, the courts of the
captor lose the jurisdiction which they had ac-
quired by the seizure.
(294) 625

Hudson v. Guestier,

16. No foreign court can question the correctness
of the sentence, unless the court passing the sen-
tence loses its jurisdiction by some circumstance
which the law of nations can notice. Id. (b) 625-

3. Assumpsit will not lie upon a policy of insur-
ance, under the corporate seal, unless a new con-
sideration be averred.
Insurance Co. of Alexandria v. Young, (332) 126
4. Quare, whether an aggregate corporation can
make an express assumpsit, unless specially author-
ized by statute.
(lb.) 126
5. After verdict, every assumpsit laid in the dec-
laration is to be taken as an express assumpsit.
Id.
(341) 129
6. Quare, whether he for whose benefit a prom-
ise is made, may maintain an action against the
promissor? Appendix,
(429) 164
7. Is privity necessary to support indebitatus as-
sumpsit for money had and received?
Appendix,

(439) 168
8. A judgment in assumpsit upon a policy under
seal, is a bar to a subsequent action of covenant,
on the same policy.

Insurance Co. of Alexandria v. Youny, (340) 128

ASSUMPSIT-3.

1. See Action, 1, 2, 3, 4.

2. Assumpsit will lie upon a letter of credit, by
him who trusts a third person upon the faith of
that letter. Lawrason v. Mason,
(493) 509

ASSUMPSIT—4.

Assumpsit, quantum meruit, will not lie for work
and labor done in part fulfillment of a sealed con-
tract, although the defendant had prevented the
plaintiff from finishing the work according to the
contract. Young v. Preston,
(239) 607

ATTACHMENT-1.

See Absent Debtor.

ATTORNEYS-1.

(240) 266

BANK OF THE UNITED STATES-4.
The act of Congress of 27th June, 1798, to punish
frauds committed on the bank of the United States
is in itself repugnant, and will not support au in-
dictment for knowingly uttering as true, a false,
forged and counterfeited paper purporting to be a
bank bill of the United States, signed by the presi-

dent and cashier.

United States v. Cantril,

BANKRUPT-1.
See Acknowledgement.

(167) 584