United States to their priority,
must be an assignment of all
the debtor's property; but it
need not be for the benefit of
all his creditors. United States
v. John Mott.
188
2. An assignment made by a debt-
or of the United States, when
his property was about being
levied upon, under judgments
obtained against him by one of
his creditors, in trust, first for
the debt of such creditor, and
then for the debt of the Unit-
ed States, was held to be a
voluntary assignment, and
fraudulent and void against the
United States, notwithstand-
ing the creditor gave up his in-
tention of levying, in consider-
ation of such assignment, and
that the property might be
sold under it to the best ad-
vantage, for the benefit of the
sureties to the United States.

ib.
3. And on a bill filed by the
United States, to obtain their
priority in such a case, against
the creditor and sureties, who
were joint assignees of the
debtor's estate, the Court re-
fused to suspend its decree in
favour of the United States,
against the assigned property.
until they should have pro-
ceeded to execution on their
judgment against the sureties,
or to make any decree in fa-
vour of the creditor against
the sureties, notwithstanding
the assignment had been re-
ceived by the creditor for
their benefit, and at their re-
quest, and they, by becoming
parties to it, had covenanted

for the execution of its trusts.ib.
4. Whether such relief would
have been afforded the credi-
tor if the sureties had been
properly before the Court for
that purpose? Quere.
ib.
5. An assignment under the act
of Congress, of 1797, to enti-
tle the United States to their
priority, must be an assign-
ment of all the debtor's pro-
perty That is, the assign-
ment must be a general one as
opposed to a partial assign-
ment, or an assignment pro-
fessedly of a part only of the
debtor's property. U. S. v.
Clark.

6.

7.

629

Where there is an omission
of an article of property in an
assignment which purports to
be general, but which does
not show that the intention
was that the assignment should
be a partial as opposed to a
general one, it does not take
the case out of the act.
If the assignment does not on
its face appear to be general,
the onus probandi is on the
United States.

ib.

ib.
8. The priority of the United
States does not attach by the
mere concealment of their
debtor while insolvent. The
"legal bankruptcy" mention-
ed in the act applies only to
cases of legal insolvency,
where by operation of law the
debtor's property is taken out
of his hands to be distributed
by others.
ib.

9.

An assignee is not liable un-
der the act until notice of the
debt due the United States.
But the notice need not be

given by the United States,
nor is a judgment or suit
against him necessary in order
to charge him with notice.
The notice must be such as is
required in ordinary cases of
trustees, and enough to put a
prudent man on inquiry. ib.
10. Where the debtor, at the
time of making the assignment,
informed the assignee that he
was surety on a bond to the
United States, and that he be-
lieved the bond was broken,
it was held sufficient notice to
the assignee.
ib.
11. The bond on which he was
such surety was a paymaster's
bond, conditioned that the lat-
ter should well and truly ac-
count for and pay over all mo-
nies received by him as such
paymaster: Held, that the
debt of the paymaster to the
United States was created by
the advances made to him, and
not at the time of striking a
balance of account against him
on the Treasury books; and
that the surety became a debt-
or as soon as the paymaster
failed to account according to
law.
ib.
12. And it was held, that it was
not necessary that the debt of
the surety should be ascer-
tained by a judgment against
him in order to make the as-
signee chargeable with its pay-
ment; but that the latter might
in the action, against himself
have the benefit of any reduc-
tion which the surety was en-
titled to.
ib.
13. Where the United States

can bring an action of assump-
sit against the assignee for mo-
nies received by him under
the assignment.
ib.
14. The article omitted in the
assignment was a debt from
the assignee to the debtor of
the United States, growing
out of a previous partnership
between them. After the
making of the assignment the
assignee gave the debtor his
bond for the debt: Held, that
if the bond was given for mo-
nies of the debtor in the as-
signee's hands at the making
of the assignment, the amount
might be recovered in assump-
sit, but not if it grew out of
unse.tled partnership con-

cerns.

ib.
15. Where assumpsit is brought

against an assignee, and he has
funds which cannot be reach-
ed by the action, it seems, that
he is not entitled to a deduc-
tion for his expenses incurred
in the preservation of the pro-
perty, and the execution of
his trust.

ib.
16. Where a part of the assign-
ed property had been sold at
auction under the direction of
the assignee, it was held
enough prima facie to show
that he had received the price
for which it was sold. ib.

PROMULGATION OF LAWS.

Vide DUTIES. FORFEITURES, 10,

11.

REMISSION OF PENAL-
TIES.

of a county is bound to take
a bond for the limits, as pro-
vided by the state laws, from
a prisoner confined on process
from the Courts of the United
States, and false imprisonment
would lie on his refusal. U.
States v. Noah.
368
2. Such a bond has in all res-
pects the same incidents and
the like legal effect with a
bond taken under the state
laws.
ib.
3. It is assignable, and an assign-
ment discharges the Sheriff
from liability for a subsequent
ib.

escape.
4. The United States are ex-
pressly named in the act, and
bound by it, and an assignment
of a bond to them when they
are plaintiffs, is valid.
ib.
5. The Secretary of the Trea-
sury having accepted such an
assignment, the Court presum-
ed that he was authorized, and
held the plaintiffs bound by
his acceptance.
ib.

6. The term process, in the act,
includes executions as well as
mesne process.
ib.

7. After a prisoner has been en-
larged upon a limit bond, the
Sheriff can confine him again
only on the bail's becoming
insufficient. He cannot ac-
cept a surrender of him-cer-
tainly not after an assignment
of the bond.
ib.

Vide ESCAPE. SHIPS, 18-20.

SHIPS.

1. The master of a ship has no
lien on the vessel, for his

2. And this difference between
the remedies of the master and
of the mariners for wages, has
not arisen from any applica-
tion of the common law doc-
trine of liens to the case of the
master, nor from encroach-
ments of the Common Law
Courts, but because the mas-
ter contracts upon the credit
of the owners and not of the
ship; and such a lien would
be attended with great incon-
venience if the master could
enforce it abroad for wages
due him, and thus compel a sa-
crifice of the ship.
ib.

3. Whether a master can pro-
ceed in personam in Admiralty
for his wages? Quere.
ib.

ib.

4. Whether disbursements made
by the master for the ship
would create a lien enforcible
in Admiralty? Quere.
5. No rule has ever been adopt-
ed by the maritime law, either
of England or this country,
prescribing the time within
which mariners should pro-
ceed to enforce their lien for
wages. Necessity of some
rule. The ship Mary.

180
6. The lien of mariners has no
analogy to common law liens,
as regards the possession of
the subject.
ib.

7. A forbearance by seamen to
libel a vessel at a port where
they are discharged, before
the end of the voyage, does
not amount to a waiver of their
lien, as against a subsequent

bona fide purchaser. Differ-
ence between a bottomry lien
and a lien for wages as res-
pects delay in enforcing it. ib.
8. A vessel sailed with a cargo
on a voyage from New-York
to New-Orleans and back.
She remained at New-Orleans
more than a year after her ar-
rival, waiting for freight. Not
obtaining any, the master dis-
charged the seamen, whom he
persuaded to return with him
in another vessel to New-
York, to get their wages. Af-
terwards, while the vessel was
at New-Orleans, she was sold,
and went a voyage to Liver-
pool, and thence to New-York.
Holden, that the seamen could
libel her on her arrival at
New-York, and that they were
entitled to their full wages to
the time of their return to that
city.
ib.

9. A bond given by the master
of a vessel, conditioned for the
exhibition of the list of his
ship's company to the first
boarding officer, at the first
port of his arrival in the Unit-
ed States, and for the produc-
tion of the crew, was held to
be a valid bond under the act
of the 28th of February, 1803,
although it was not expressed
to be taken in pursuance of
said act, and although it was
not stated on the face of the
bond which of the obligors was
the principal and which the
surety. And the declaration
on the bond was held good al-
though it did not refer to the
statute. U. States v. Hatch. 336
10. The certificate of the consul,