« PreviousContinue »
Vide Ships, 12–17. cessive verdicts in several of
the suits ? Quere. ib.
Vide JURISDICTION, 2-6. PA-
Vide STATUTES OF U.S. 1. The act of the state of New-
York of the 3d of April, 1811,
HYPOTHECATION. i is an insolvent and not a bank-
rupt law. Adams v. Storey. 79
2. Distinction between insolvent
and bankrupt laws.--Derived
from England, where it has
been long established. Those
1. No exertions which one may laws defined.
make to procure the condem- 3. If the act in question, how-
nation of a vessel under a sup. ever, had been a bankrupt
position that he is entitled to law, it would not have been
a part of the penalty as infor void as repugnant to the consti-
mer, can constitute him an in- tution of the United States. ib.
former, unless he actually gave 4. Presumption in favour of the
the information which led to constitutionality of state laws.
the seizure. Brewster v.. Gel-
426 5. The existence of a power in
the states to pass bankrupt
laws, not incompatible with
the powers delegated to Con-
gress for that purpose. The
1. An injunction to stay proceed. exercise of the powers of the
ings in ninety-two suits in latter would, however, sus-
ejectment, where the parties, pend the powers of the for-
pleadings, title, and testimony, mer. .
were the same in each suit, 6. Importance of bankrupt laws
until one or more could be to the larger commercial states,
tried, the remaiuder to abide and probability that they in-
the event, refused. A court tended to retain the right of
of law can afford the necessary making their own until Con-
relief in such a case, if it be gress could adopt an uniform
proper, by a consolidation rule. system. Difficulties attending
Peters v. Prevost.
64 the adoption of such system.
2. Whether in such a case a per-
petual injunction would be 7. Whether a general bankrupt
granted against proceeding in law, including any classes be-
the remaining actions after the sides traders, would be within
defendants had obtained suce the powers granted by the
18. Expediency and justice of
19. The defendant made to the
plaintiffs at Boston, Massachu-
setts, while they all resided
there, several promissory
notes, and afterwards remor-
ed to New-York, where he
was discharged under the in-
solvent law of that state, of the
3d of April, 1811, which was
passed after the making of the
notes. Held, that his discharge
was a good bar to the action. ib.
constitution to Congress ?
8. The constitutional provision
that “no state shall pass any
law impairing the obligation of
contracts," does not apply to
9. Difficulty attending the appli-
cation of this provision. ib.
10. Rules of constitutional con-
11. History of the evils which
led to the adoption of this and
the like restraining provisions.
Insolvent laws were not among
those evils ; on the contrary,
they were esteemed benefi-
12. Inference from the uninter-
rupted practice of some of the
states in favour of the consti-
'tutionality of such laws. ib.
13. Presumption that contract.
ing parties, being aware of this
practice, make their contracts
with reference to it. ib.
14. The retrospective operation
of insolvent laws does not
bring them within the consti-
15. Chronological account of the
insolvent laws of New-York.
· No distinction in any of them
between existing and future
16. The rule lex loci contractus
does not apply to cases of dis-
charge underinsolvent laws. ib.
17. Meaning of this rule. Mis
chievous tendency of some
dicta and decisions arising out
of it, proceeding on a inistake
in applying it as well to the
remedy as to the construction
and validity of the contract.
Remarks on Smith and Bu-
chanan, and other cases. ib.
1. The register of a vessel is the
only document which need
be on board during a period
of universal peace, in com-
pliance with the warranty of
natioaal character. Catlett v.
Pacific Insurance Company.
2. It is the original register
which is required by law to
be transmitted, on the loss of
a vessel, to the Register of
the Treasury to be cancelled.
And as it is the practice not to
destroy the register after it is
cancelled, it is a document
required by law to be depo-
sited in the Register's office;
and a duly certified copy is
3. The record of condemnation
of a vessel, in a Court of
Vice-Admiralty, is not evi.
dence per se. The seal does
not prove itself, but must be
proved by a witness who
knows it ; or the handwriting
of the judge or clerk must be
proved; or that it is an exa-
mined copy. The certificate
· of the American Consul is not
sufficient to authenticate it. ib.
4. The testimony of the captain,
tbat a suryey was held on the
· vessel, and that the surveyors
reported that she could not
be repaired but at too great
an expense, and that she was
thereupon condemned on his
application, although not evi.
dence of these proceedings,
was held to be evidence that
he coincided with the survey-
ors in opinion.
5. An averment that the plain-
tiffs have an entire interest in
themselves in the subject in-
sured, cannot be supported by
evidence of a joint interest
6. Nor can ad averment of a
joint interest with others, be
supported by proof of a sole
7. The plaintiffs purchased, se-
parately, each a moiety of the
cargo, which was specie, and
instructed their agent to get
it insured on their joint ac-
count: The agent effected
the insurance, but the policy
was expressed to be on ac-
count of owners : Afterwards,
one of the plaiotiffs transfer-
red half bis share to the per-
son who was to go in the ves-
sel as supercargo. Held, that
the term “ owners," was de-
scriptive of the persons in-
tended to be insured, and re-
ferring to matters out of the
policy, was open to explana-
tion by extrinsic proof. ib.
8. As the underwriters under-
stood, when they made the
insurance, that it was on ac-
count of the plaintiffs only, it
was held, that they could not
set up that the supercargo be-
came an owner before the
commencement of the risk. ib.
9. The bill of lading, on its face,
and the other papers, showed
that the interest of the three
owners, after shipment, was
joint : But there was an en-
dorsement on the bill of la-
ding, stating that one half the
cargo was the property of one
of the plaintiffs, and the other
half the property of the other
plaintiff and the supercargo :
Held, that the endorsement
was intended only to show the
extent of each owner's inte-
rest, and that the separate
purchase of the cargo, toge.
ther with the endorsement,
did not prove that their inte.
rests were several. ib.
10. Before the end of the voy-
age it was broken up, and the
ingured abandoned on learning
the fact. The instructions to
the master and supercargo,
showed that the rights and
duties of the latter, as su-
percargo, were not to com-
mence until the end of the
voyage. On the loss of the
voyage, the master delivered
the specie to the agent of the
supercargo, and it was invest-
ed in cotton. Held, that as
the supercargo was not inte.
rested in the policy, his acts
did not bind the other joint
owners ; and that his capacity
of supercargo suspended what.
ever powers he might have
had as a partner, and that the
investment by him of the spe-
cie, was as agent for the un-
derwriters, and did not con-
stitute an act of ownership, so bel for seizures made in an-
as to waive the abandonment. other district from that where
ib. the proceedings are instituted.
But the District Court of the
district wbere the seizure is
If there bas not been a previous made, has exclusive jurisdic-
demand of the penalty of a tion. The brig Little Ann.
bond, or an acknowledgment
that the whole is due, interest 2. The Circuit Courts are not
is recoverable only from the inferior in the technical sense
commencement of the suit. of the books, but are so oply
Bank of U. S. v. Magill. 661 as subordinate to the Supreme
Court. But their jurisdiction
is special and limited. Living-
ston v. Van Ingen. 45
Vide ESCAPE. SHERIFFS. 3. If jurisdiction of cases aris-
ing under the laws of the Unit-
ed States” be not conferred on
the Circuit Courts by an act
Vide Action, 1. CAAXCERY, 3— of Congress, they cannot take
12. EVIDENCE, 8, 9, 10. Exe cognizance of them. ib.
CUTIONS. JURISDICTION, 7, 8, 4. And where Congress bare
9. PRACTICE, 3, 4, 5. 7. given an action at law in
the Circuit Court in cer-
tain cases, they do not thereby
acquire jurisdiction so as to
1. The jurisdiction of the District entertain in those cases a bill
Courts derived fromthat clause in equity not relating to an ac-
in the judiciary act declaring tion at law.
that they shall have “exclu- 5. But, whether, if it should be-
sive original cognizance of all come necessary in action at
civil causes of admiralty and law in the Circuit Courts to
maritime jurisdiction, includ. appeal to their equity side in
ing all seizures under laws of aid or defence of such action,
impost, navigation, or trade of those Courts would have the
the United States, where the necessary equity powers ?
seizures are made on waters Quere.
which are navigable from the 6. A bill filed to restrain the in-
sea by vessels of ten or more fringement of a patent, where
tons burthen, within their re both parties were citizens of
spective districts; and of all the same state dismissed, and
seizures on land or other wa an injunction refused.--Con-
ters than as aforesaid made, gress having confined the re-
and of all suits for penalties medy for a breach of patent
and forfeitures incurred under rights to an action at law, and
the laws of the United States," the judiciary acts not giving
does not extend to cases of li the Court jurisdiction in equi-
ty, except in cases between and laws of the United States
citizens of different states. ib. give them jurisdiction. Lucas
7. The judgments of a Court not v. Morris.
having jurisdiction are not 12. The District Courts have
merely erroneous, and valid not, like the Chancellor in
until reversed, but are void ab England, exclusive jurisdiction
initio. Denn ex dem. Fisher v. over the entire execution of
55 the bankrupt law. ib.
8. A judgment of a State Court 13. They cannot remove the
in a case where jurisdiction assignees, nor compel them to
was acquired, not by the com account.
mon law, but by a statute of 14. Plea to the jurisdiction by a
the state, which before the bankrupt on a bill filed by his
rendition of the judgment bad creditors to compel the as-
been virtually repealed by the signees to account, overruled.
adoption of a treaty, was held
not voidable, but void. ib. 15. The Circuit Courts are not
9. In 1780 the ancestor of the deprived of their jurisdiction
lessors of the plaintiff, a Bri where it arises from the citi-
tish subject, was indicted in zenship or alienage of parties,
the Supreme Court of New by the joining of a mere no-
York, under the act entitled minal party, who does not pos-
“ an act for the forfeiture and sess the requisite character.
sale of the estates of persons' Ward v. Arredondo. 410
who have adhered to the ene. 16. But where, in equity, a de-
mies of this state,” &c. ; and cree against such party is es-
in October, 1783, a judgment "sential to the relief sought, he
of forfeiture against his estates is not a mere nominal party.
was rendered. The treaty of
peace stipulating against any 17. The jurisdiction of the Su-
subsequent confiscation, was preme Court is pointed out
signed in September preced by the constitution ; but the
ing. Held, that the proceed. distribution of the powers of
ings were coram non judice, the inferior Courts is regulat-
ib. ed and governed by the laws
10. The District Courts possess by which they are constitute,
ing all the powers of Courts ed. Smith v. Jackson. 453
of Admiralty, wbether consi. 18. The Circuit Courts have no
dered as instance or prize supervising power or control
Courts, have jurisdiction of all over the District Courts other
cases of marine trespass or than is given by the laws of
tort. The Amiable Nancy. 111 the United States ; which is to
11. The Circuit Courts have ju- . compel a rendition of a judg-
risdiction of matters arising ment or decree, and to re-ex-
under the bankrupt law, as amine it on error or appeal.
they have of any other sub-
ject, where the constitution 19. To deprive an American ci.