OF

CASES

ARGUED AND ADJUDGED

IN

THE SUPREME COURT

OF

THE UNITED STATES.

February Term, 1816.

BY HENRY WHEATON,
Counsellor at Law.

CA-BOD

VOLUME I.

PHILADELPHIA:

PUBLISHED BY MATHEW CAREY.

........

1816.

B

DE IT REMEMBERED that on the twentieth day of December, in the fortieth
year of the Independence of the United States of America, MATHEW CAREY, of the
said district, hath deposited in this office the title of a book, the right whereof he claims
as proprietor, in the words following, to wit:

"Reports of Cases argued and adjudged in the Supreme Court of the United States.
February term, 1816. Ry Henry Wheaton, Counsellor at Law. Volume I."

IN CONFORMITY to the act of Congress of the United States, entitled, "An act for the
encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts, and books, to the
authors and proprietors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned;" and also, to
an act entitled, "An act, supplementary to an act, entitled, an act for the encourage-
"ment of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts, and books, to the authors and
"proprietors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned, and extending the bene-
fits thereof to the arts of designing, engraving, and etching historical and other prints."
D. CALDWELL,
Clerk of the District of Pennsylvania.

PREFACE.

In presenting to the profession the first volume of the Reports, which the editor is pledged to continue, he feels how much he will stand in need of its indulgence for the imperfections which may be discovered in a work, at once so important and difficult. It is not, however, with the view of deprecating the justice of criticism, that he offers a few remarks upon the nature of the undertaking, and the manner in which it has been executed.

Of the arguments of counsel nothing more has been attempted than to give a faithful outline; to do justice to the learning and eloquence of the bar would not be possible, within any reasonable limits : the reporter, therefore, trusts that his professional brethren will regard with candour the imperfections they may perceive, whilst the public will attribute them to the cause mentioned. It is possible that some important illustrations may have been omitted; but it is believed that the points and authorities have been faithful

ly recorded, where the cases either admitted of, or required, it.

The same discretion has been exercised in omitting to report cases turning on mere questions of fact, and from which no important principle, or general rule, could be extracted. Of these an unusual number has recently occurred on the admiralty side of the court, attended with an infinite variety of circumstances, but inapplicable, as precedents, to future

cases.

Some notes have been added, in order to illustrate the decisions by analogous authorities; and whilst gleaning in the rich field of prize jurisprudence, afforded by the late war, it was thought expedient to subjoin a more ample view of the practice in prize causes than has yet been presented to the public, which may possibly serve as a check to those irregularities that had crept in, from the want of experience, in this branch of the administration of justice. Its doctrines have been developed by the court in a masterly manner; and we may contemplate with pride and satisfaction the structure which has been built up in so short a time, and under circumstances so unpropitious to the development of the true principles of public law. On this occasion we are compelled to lament the loss of an illustrious civilian, whose labours so eminently contributed to facilitate those of the court, and who has been removed, by the inexorable hand of death, from this scene of active contention, and generous emulation.* With how much