1. An injunction to stay proceed- ings in ninety-two suits in ejectment, where the parties, pleadings, title, and testimony, were the same in each suit, until one or more could be tried, the remainder to abide the event, refused. A court of law can afford the necessary relief in such a case, if it be proper, by a consolidation rule. Peters v. Prevost.
64 2. Whether in such a case a per- petual injunction would be granted against proceeding in the remaining actions after the defendants had obtained suc-
If the act in question, how- ever, had been a bankrupt law, it would not have been void as repugnant to the consti- tution of the United States. ib. 4. Presumption in favour of the constitutionality of state laws. ib. 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 exercise of the powers of the latter would, however, sus- pend the powers of the for-
ib. 6. Importance of bankrupt laws to the larger commercial states, and probability that they in- tended to retain the right of making their own until Con- gress could adopt an uniform system. Difficulties attending the adoption of such system. ib.
7. Whether a general bankrupt law, including any classes be- sides traders, would be within the powers granted by the
constitution to Congress? 18. Expediency and justice of
8. The constitutional provision that "no state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts," does not apply to insolvent laws. ib. 9. Difficulty attending the appli- cation of this provision. ib. 10. Rules of constitutional con- struction: ib. 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- cial. ib. 12. Inference from the uninter- rupted practice of some of the states in favour of the consti- tutionality of such laws. 13. Presumption that contract- ing parties, being aware of this practice, make their contracts with reference to it. 14. The retrospective operation of insolvent laws does not bring them within the consti- tutional provision. ib. 15. Chronological account of the insolvent laws of New-York. No distinction in any of them between existing and future contracts. ib. 16. The rule lex loci contractus does not apply to cases of dis- charge under insolvent laws. ib. 17. Meaning of this rule. Mis-
chievous tendency of some dicta and decisions arising out of it, proceeding on a mistake 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.
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 legal evidence. 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, that a survey 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. ib. 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 with others. ib. 6. Nor can an averment of a joint interest with others, be supported by proof of a sole ib. interest. 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 plaintiffs transfer- red half his 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- ib. tion by extrinsic proof. 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. 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 insured 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 as to waive the abandonment. ib.
If there has not been a previous demand of the penalty of a bond, or an acknowledgment that the whole is due, interest is recoverable only from the commencement of the suit. Bank of U. S. v. Magill. 661
Vide ACTION, 1. Chancery, 3— 12. EVIDENCE, 8, 9, 10. EXE- CUTIONS. JURISDICTION, 7, 8, 9. PRACTICE, 3, 4, 5. 7.
1. The jurisdiction of the District Courts derived from that clause in the judiciary act declaring that they shall have "exclu- sive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, includ- ing all seizures under laws of impost, navigation, or trade of the United States, where the seizures are made on waters which are navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons burthen, within their re- spective districts; and of all seizures on land or other wa- ters than as aforesaid made, and of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred under the laws of the United States," does not extend to cases of li-
bel for seizures made in an- other district from that where the proceedings are instituted. But the District Court of the district where the seizure is made, has exclusive jurisdic- tion. The brig Little Ann.
40 2. The Circuit Courts are not inferior in the technical sense of the books, but are so only as subordinate to the Supreme Court. But their jurisdiction is special and limited. Living- ston v. Van Ingen. 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 of Congress, they cannot take cognizance of them. ib. 4. And where Congress have given an action at law in the Circuit Court in cer- tain cases, they do not thereby acquire jurisdiction so as to entertain in those cases a bill in equity not relating to an ac- tion at law.
ib. But, whether, if it should be- come necessary in action at law in the Circuit Courts to appeal to their equity side in aid or defence of such action, those Courts would have the necessary equity powers? Quere. ib.
6. A bill filed to restrain the in- fringement of a patent, where both parties were citizens of the same state dismissed, and an injunction refused.-Con- gress having confined the re- medy for a breach of patent rights to an action at law, and the judiciary acts not giving the Court jurisdiction in equi-
ty, except in cases between citizens of different states. ib. 7. The judgments of a Court not having jurisdiction are not merely erroneous, and valid until reversed, but are void ab initio. Denn ex dem. Fisher v. Harnden. 55
and laws of the United States give them jurisdiction. Lucas v. Morris. 396 12. The District Courts have not, like the Chancellor in England, exclusive jurisdiction over the entire execution of the bankrupt law. ib. 13. They cannot remove the assignees, nor compel them to ib.
14. Plea to the jurisdiction by a bankrupt on a bill filed by his creditors to compel the as- signees to account, overruled. ib.
15. The Circuit Courts are not deprived of their jurisdiction where it arises from the citi- zenship or alienage of parties, by the joining of a mere no- minal party, who does not pos- sess the requisite character. Ward v. Arredondo.
16. But where, in equity, a de- cree against such party is es- sential to the relief sought, he is not a mere nominal party.
3. A judgment of a State Court in a case where jurisdiction was acquired, not by the com- mon law, but by a statute of the state, which before the rendition of the judgment had been virtually repealed by the adoption of a treaty, was held not voidable, but void. ib. 9. In 1780 the ancestor of the lessors of the plaintiff, a Bri- tish subject, was indicted in the Supreme Court of New- York, under the act entitled "an act for the forfeiture and sale of the estates of persons who have adhered to the ene- mies of this state," &c.; and in October, 1783, a judgment of forfeiture against his estates was rendered. The treaty of peace stipulating against any subsequent confiscation, was signed in September preced- ing. Held, that the proceed- ings were coram non judice, and void. ib. 10. The District Courts possess- ing all the powers of Courts of Admiralty, whether consi- dered as instance or prize Courts, have jurisdiction of all cases of marine trespass or tort. The Amiable Nancy. 111 11. The Circuit Courts have ju- risdiction of matters arising under the bankrupt law, as they have of any other sub- ject, where the constitution 19. To deprive an American ci-
ib. 17. The jurisdiction of the Su- preme Court is pointed out by the constitution; but the distribution of the powers of the inferior Courts is regulat- ed and governed by the laws by which they are constitut- ed. Smith v. Jackson. 453 18. The Circuit Courts have no supervising power or control over the District Courts other than is given by the laws of the United States; which is to compel a rendition of a judg- ment or decree, and to re-ex- amine it on error or appeal.
« PreviousContinue » |