ABANDONMENT.

1. The capture of a neutral as prize by
a belligerent, is a total loss, and en-
titles the insured to abandon. Rhine-
lander v In Co. Pennsylvania, 29
2. The state of the loss at the time of
the offer to abandon fixes the rights
of the parties,
ib.
3. The right of the assured to abandon
and recover for a total loss, de-
pends upon the state of the fact at
the time of the offer to abandon, and
not upon the state of the information
received. Marshall v. Delaware In. Co.
202

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, ib. 203
5. If at the time of the offer to aban-
don, the ship be in possession of the
master, in good condition, and at
full liberty to proceed on the voy.
age, the loss of the cargo will not
authorize the owner of the vessel to
recover for a total loss of the vessel.
Alexander v. Baltimore In. Co. 371
ACCESSORY.

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 ap-
pears. Jennings v Carson,

2

17.

18.

19.

20.

4. The thing does not follow the appeal 16.
into the superior court; but remains
in the court below; which has a
right to order it to be sold, if pe-
rishable, notwithstanding the ap-
peal,
ib.
5. If the captor fails to libel the cap.
tured vessel, the owner may claim
her in a court of admiralty, ib. 23
6. The practice of the district courts of
the United States as courts of admi-
ralty, is not regulated by law, ib. 24
7. A vessel libelled is always in pos-
session of the law,
ib
8. If a court cannot, consistently with
the law of nations, exercise the ju-
risdiction it has assumed, its sen-
tence is to be disregarded. Rose v.
Himely,
241
9. Every sentence of condemnation by
a competent court, having juris-
diction over the subject matter of its
judgment, is conclusive as to the
title claimed under it,
ib.
10. A seizure of a foreign vessel beyond
the limits of the territorial jurisdic-
tion, for breach of a municipal regu
lation, is not warranted by the law
of nations, and cannot give jurisdic-
tion to the courts of the offended
country; especially if the property
seized be never carried within its
territorial jurisdiction, ib. 242
11. Quære, whether a French court can,
consistently with the law of nations
and the treaty, condemn American
property, never carried into the do-
minions of France, and while lying
in a port of the United States, ib. 243
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 tribu-
nal sitting in a French port Hudson
v Guestier,
293
13. The possession of the sovereign of
the captors gives jurisdiction to his
courts, ib

294

21.

22.

See Bottomry, 1, 2, 8. Salvage, 1,
2, 3.

The sentence of a foreign court of
admiralty condemning a vessel for
breach of blockade is conclusive evi-
dence of that fact, in an action upon
the policy of insurance. Croudson v.
Leonard,
434
All seizures under laws of impost,
navigation or trade of the United
States, where the seizures are made
on waters navigable from the sea by
vessels of ten or more tons burden,
are civil causes of admiralty and ma-
ritime jurisdiction, and are to be tried
without a jury. United States v.
Schooner Betsey and Charlotte, 443
Quære, whether the claimant's an-
swer to the libel ought not always to
be upon oath, if required; and
whether he is not bound to submit
to answer interrogatories upon oath,
viva voce, in open court?
ib.
Quare, whether, on the trial of a ves-
sel without a jury, according to the
course of the admiralty, for trading
to St. Domingo contrary to law, evi-
dence may not be heard by the judge,
that other vessels belonging to the
same owner, were at the same pro-
hibited port, at the same time; as a
circumstance tending to discredit
the evidence of distress set up as an
excuse for going to such prohibited
port? ib.
444

If the libel aver the vessel to be of
more than ten tons burden, and to
have arrived at a certain port from
the West Indies, and that she was
seized in such port, the court will
consider it as sufficiently averred
that such a seizure was made upon
waters navigable from the sea by
vessels of ten or more tons burden,
447

ib.

The question whether a seizure for
violation of a law of the United States
is of admiralty or common law ju-
risdiction, is to be decided by the

1. When both parties are aliens, the
courts of the United States have not
jurisdiction. Montalet v Murray, 46
2. A person born in the colony of New-
Jersey before the year 1775, and re-
siding there till the year 1777, but
who then joined the British army,
and ever since adhered to the Bri-
tish, claiming to be a British sub-
ject, and demanding and receiving
compensation from that government
for his loyalty, and his sufferings as
a refugee, is not an alien, but may
take lands in New-Jersey by de-
scent. M'Ilvaine v. Coxe,
209
3. A person born in England before
1775, and who always resided there,
and never was in the United States,
is an alien, and could not, in the
year 1793, take lands in Maryland
by descent from a citizen of the
United States. Dawson's Lessee v.
Godfrey,

ANSWER.

See Admiralty, 19.

APPEAL.

321

1. The thing, in proceedings in rem,

does not follow the cause into the
appellate court; but remains in the
court below, which has a right to
order it to be sold, if perishable,
notwithstanding the appeal. Fen-
nings v Carson,

2

2. The sentences of the old continental
court of appeals in prize causes may
be enforced by the district courts of
the United States,

ib.
3. An appeal lies from the district court
of the United States for the territory
of Orleans, directly to the supreme
court of the United States. Morgan
v. Callender,
370

4. An appeal, or writ of error, lies
from the judgment of the circuit
court of the district of Columbia to
the supreme court of the United
States in cases where the bank of

Alexandria is plaintiff, and the judg-
ment below is in its favour, notwith-
standing the clause in its charter to
the contrary. Young v. Bank of
Alexandria,

APPEARANCE.

384

1. The appearance of the defendant in
error waives all objection to the ir-
regularity of the return of the writ
of error Wood v. Lide,
180

2. The appearance of the defendant, to
a foreign attachment in a circuit
court of the United States waives
all objection to the non-service of
process. Pollard v. Dwight,
421
APPRAISEMENT.
See Evidence, 5,
ARREST.

The word "apprehended," in the 8th
section of the act of congress for the
punishment of certain crimes, com-
prehends a military arrest or seizure,
as well as a legal arrest. Ex parte
Bollman and Swartwout,
77

ASSIGNEE.

An assignee of an assignée of a co-
partner in a joint purchase and sale
of lands may sustain a bill in equity
against the other copartners and the
agent of the concern, to compel a
discovery of the quantity purchased
and sold, and for an account and
distribution of the proceeds. Pendle-
ton v. Wambursie,
78

1

BANK OF ALEXANDRIA.

1. See Appeal, 4.

347

2. The act of Virginia incorporating the
bank of Alexandria is a public act.
Young v. Bank of Alexandria, 384

BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.
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 an
indictment for knowingly uttering
as true, a false, forged and counter-
feited paper purporting to be a bank
bill of the United States, signed by
the president and cashier. United
States v. Cantril,
167

BILL OF EXCHANGE.

If the drawer of a bill of exchange, at
the time of drawing, has a right to
expect that his bill will be honoured,
he is entitled to strict notice, al-
though he had no funds in the hands
of the drawee. French v. Bank of
Columbia,
141