389. The sentence of a foreign court of V Admiralty, con. Admiralty. demning a ship for breach of blockade, is conclusive evidence tene. Foreign sen of the fact of breach of blockade. 6 Mass. T. R. 277-Bax- Evidence. ter v. New England Marine Ins. Co. Supreme Court Mass.1810. 7 Do. 275-S C. Sup. Court Mass. 1811. 4 Day's cases, 179-Brown v The Union Ins. Co. at N. London S.P. 2 Johns, ca. 127-Vandenheuvel v. The United Ins Co S. P. Sup. Court N. York, 1801. 2 Johns cases 451, S. C.-S P. contra Court of Errors N. York. 1802. 2 Johns. cases, 174 -Laing v. The United Ins. Co S. P. accord. Sup. Court N. Fork, 1801. 2 Johns. cases, 487.S. C.-S. P. contra. Court of Errors. N. Fork, 1802. 9 Johns. Reports. 277-- Radcliff v. The U.S. Ins. Co. S P. accord. Sup. Court. N. Fork, 1812.

390. A British subject, naturalized and residing in the U. Naturalization. States, cannot, by taking an oath of allegiance to the King of Aliens· Spain, and exercising, in this country, the office of Spanish Consul, become an alien, or a Spanish subject 2 Johns. cases, 407-Fish v. Stoughton. Sup. Court, N. York, 1801.

591. The 4th article of the treaty of peace between the Treaty. U. States and Great Britain, overrules and annuis, ab initio, British treaty. all laws of the U. States. or of the individual States, made to sequester or confiscate debts due to British subjects, and restores to the creditor the full rights of recovering his claim against the American debtor; and it is the duty of the State and federal Judges to pronounce all laws contrary to the treaty null and void.

If a treaty be broken by one of the parties, it becomes, not absolutely void, but voidable only at the option of the other contracting party. S Dallas, 199-Ware v. Hylton, Supreme Court, United States, 1796.

392. That an interest may be protected by the British Treaty, it must be an interest holden as a security for money at the time of a treaty, and the debt must still remain due. 5 Crunch 344-Owens v. Norwood's lessee S. C. U. S. 1809. $93. Under the treaty of 1794. with Great Britain, a British subject could hold lands purchased prior to that time. 6 Mass. T. R. 441-Commonwealth v. Sheafe, Supreme C. Massachusetts, 1810.

$94. Although there may be cases in which the court will exercise jurisdiction in disputes between foreigners, yet it will generally remit them to their own domestic forum.Bee's Reports 217-The Nanny, District C., S. C. 1805.

Treaty.

British treaty.

Treaty.

British treaty.

Aliens.

Jurisdiction.

Admiralty.

$95. Supplies to a foreign vessel in a neutral port will constitute a lien on the vessel, and are recoverable in admiralty. Material-men. Bee, 78-The Eagle, District Court, S. C., 1796.

Admiralty. 396. Where the contract for repairs was made on land, Material-men, and the owners were represented on the spot by a consignee. who had funds, the admiralty has not jurisdiction. Bee, 167, Pritchard v. The Horatia, District Court, S. C., 1800. 397. If the master borrow money for repairing damages to a vessel, done on the high sea, the admiralty has jurisdiction of a libel by the lender. Bee, 116-The Rainbow, District

Admiralty.

War.

Court, South Carolina, 1798.

398. A capture made on land by unauthorised individuals, Capture of land from an enemy, does not divest the property from the origina! owner. without condemnation or distribution by some compesent authority. 1 Bay, 20-Turnbull v. Koss, C. C. pleas, South Carolina, 1785

Admmalty
Hypothecation.

Admiralty.
Salvage.
Prize.

Admiralty.
Neutrals.
False papers.

War. Trade with enemy

Treaty,

Blockade.

399. The master of a vessel can only hypothecate in a foreign port. where his owner has no personal credit, and the vessel is in such distress that the voyage cannot be completed without it. Bee, 120---Tunno v The Mary Dis. Court, S. C. 1798. I.. 131-Boreal v. The Golden Rose, Dis. C., & C. 1798. Id. 157—Putnam v. The Polly, Dis. C., S. C. 1800' Id 250-Sloane v, Haley, Dis. C., S. C. 1808, 400. A captured vessel saved by a neutral is to be restored to the captor on payment of salvage. Bee 92- Booth v. The Esperanza, Dis. C., South Carolina, 1798. 401. False papers divesi a neutral of all right to redress under treaties, or the law of nations. Bee, 202-Mann v. Sacks, Dis. C., South Carolina, 1804.

402. A declaration of war puts a period to all commercial executory contracts subsisting at the time between the citizens of the belligerent nations. 1 Nott & McCord, 563— McGrath v. Isaacs, C. C., South Carolina, 1819.

403. Under the treaty of 1794 with Great Britain, a breach of British treaty blockade, to warrant a capture, must consist in a second attempt to enter the blockaded port after being duly warneda declaration of the master, that he intended to enter the port if released, is not sufficient ground of capture. 2 Bay, 388Williamson v. Tunno, C. C., S. C., 1802.

Admiralty.
Prize.
Neutrals.

Admiralty.
Prize
Neutrals.

404 The crew of a neutral vessel. unlawfully captured by a belligerent, may retake the vessel, and may recover damages out of goods put on board by the captors. Bee, 141British Consul v. Thompson. District Court, S C. 1799.

405. Belligerents have no right to sell their prizes in a neutral port, unless privileged by treaty. But the neutral government may grant permission without violating neutrality:

if all the belligerents are in this respect put upon an equal footing. Bee, 263-Consul of Spain v. Consul of G. Britain, C. C., South Carolina.

Prize.

406. The sale of a prize in a port not belonging to the cap- Admiralty. tors, before condemnation, does not divest the property of the original owner. Bee, 300-Rose v. Himely, District Court, South Carolina, 1804.

Prize.
The Neutrals.

407. Neutral courts have no jurisdiction of the question of Admiralty. prize as between the belligerents. Bee, 66-Reid v Vere, District Court South Carolina.

408. The courts of admiralty in this country will maintain Admiralty. a suit for damages happening to a vessel in the hands of the Prize. captor, after a decree of restitution in a foreign court, Bee, 60-McGrath v. Sloop Candalero, Dis. Court, S Car., 1794.

409. Under the treaty with France, a French armed ship Treaty. French treaty. duly commissioned, but fitted out in an American port, might bring in and carry away her prizes, without being subject to the courts of this country. Bee, 40-Stannick v. The Friendship, District Court, S, Car., 1794. Id. 69-British Consul v. The Mermaid, Dis. Court, South Carolina, 1795.

410. In such case the court can only interfere where the Treaty. equipment of the privateer in the neutral port, contravenes French treaty. the laws of neutrality. Bee, 40-Salderondo v. The Nostra Signora. District Court, South Carolina, 1794.

Neutrals.

Prize.

411. An augmentation of force in an American port, is a Admiralty. breach of neutrality, and of the law of nations, as well as of Neutrals. the laws of the United States; and a prize captured by such Law of nations. a vessel must be restored if brought within the jurisdiction of our courts. Bee, 73—British Consul v. The Nancy, District Court, South Carolina, 1795.

412. A condemnation of captured goods in a court of com- Admiralty. petent jurisdiction, is absolutely necessary before the proper- Prize ty can be divested out of the original owner. 1 Bay, 470Sasportas v. Jennings, Court of Common Pleas, S. C., 1795.

413. A condemnation, in a French Court of Admiralty, of Admiralty.. property lying in the ports of an ally, cannot be enquired into Prize. by the courts of this country. Bee, 163-Sheaff v. Goods, Neutrals, &c., District Court, South Carolina, 1800.

Prize.

414 A sentence of condemnation founded on a municipal Admiralty. regulation, not made until after the capture of the property on the high seas, is not final and conclusive, and the property may be restored to the original owners, if brought within the jurisdiction of the courts of their own county. Bee, 308— Rose v. Himely. District court, South Carolina, 1805.

Foreign

sentence.

Bvidence.

Aliens.

Aliens.

Aliens.

Aliens.

Aliens.

Aliens.

415 If a foreign court of admiralty condemn a vessel as lawful prize, or as the property of an enemy generally, without assigning any reasons, the law of nations will presume that they have gone upon proper grounds, and their sentence is conclusive on all the world. 2 Bay. 237—( ampbell v. Williamson, C. C., South Carolina, 1800.

416. But where the ground of the sentence is uncertain, the truth may be examined, as where the vessel was libelled as enemy's property, and condemned for breach of blockade. 2 Bay, 563- Blacklock v. Stewart. C. C., S. Car.. 1802.

417. A sentence of condemnation is not conclusive if it de not state sufficient grounds. 2 Bay, 388 Williamson v. Tunno, Circuit Court South Carotina. 1802. 418. A condemnation as prize is Lot a condemnation as enemy's property, so as to conclude the assured. 1. Nott and McCord 541, in note-Bailey v. South Carolina Insurance Company, C. C. South Carolina.

1809.

419. In an action on a policy of insurance, a condemnation as enemy's property, by a foreign Court of admiralty is conclusive evidence of a breach of neutrality. 1, Nott and MicCord 587, Groning v. Union Insurance Company, C. C South Carolina. 1819.

420. The title, of an alien friend, to lands in Maryland, is good against every body but the state, and can only be devested by office found, or by some act done by the state to take possession; and his chattels real vest in his representa tives. 4, Har. and McHenry, 409-McCreery v Alexander, Gen. Court Maryland. 1799.

421. In North Carolina, an alien cannot take lands by devise. 2 Haywood. 104--University v.. 2 do. 108--Gilmour v. Kay.

422. In North Carolina, the title to lands purchased by an alien continues in him until office found. 2 Haywood, 37, Doe v. Horniblea.

423. An alien cannot maintain ejectment; but if he is in possession of real property he may maintain trespass quare clausum fregit. 1 Hayw, 485-Bayes v. Hogg.

424. A foreigner naturalized in a state before the adoption of the Federal Constitution, and who continued to reside there until that event, became thereby a citizen of the United States. 2 Car. Law Repository, 112-Teare v. White, Sup. Court North Carolina.

1815.

425. Where a father has been a citizen of the United States his children are entitled to inherit lands in South Carolina,

though born out of the limits of the United States. -Aliter of the child of a itizen mother by an alien father. 1 Nott and McCord, 292 - Davis v. Hall C. C. South Carolina. 1818.

426. By an act of South Carolina, of 1807, a grant of land Aliens. to an alien is valid, provided he has declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States agreeably to the act of congress. 1 Rep. Con. C. 411-Meeks v. Richbourg.

427 A subject of Great Britain, though born before the Aliens. declaration of Independence, is an alien and incapable of holding lands in South Carolina, although he may take by purchase. 4 Dess. 330-Clifton, v Haig, Court Chancery, South Carolina.

1812.

428. The husband of an alien female who had given notice Aliens. of her intention to become a citizen and had taken the oath, but who died before she was duly naturalized, was held to be incapable of inheriting, through her, lands in South Carolina. 1 McCord 187-McDaniel v. Richards, C. C. South Carolina 1821.

429. Aliens cannot take lands by descent in Kentucky. Aliens. Har ling, 61-Hunt v. Warnicke. 1806

430. A person deriving title to lands in Kentucky, in virtue Aliens. of the act of 1800, under an alien claiming by descent, must show, on the trial, that such alien was 2 years in the country previous to the death of the ancestor. 1 Litt. 149-Trustees of Louisville v. Gray. 1822.

431. After the ratification of the articles of confederation, Aliens. an alien who became a citizen of any one of the United States, became thereby a citizen of Virginia, so as to be able to hold lands. 3 Litt. 476-Elmendorf v. Carnichael, Court Appeals, Kentucky. 1823.

Prize.

432. A condemnation, by a court of admiralty of pri- Admiralty. zes. brought into the port of an ally, is valid. 15 Johns. Rep. 172-Page v. Lenox, Sup C N. Y. 1818.

433. No action can be maintained at common law for an Prize. illegal capture, on the high seas, as prize of war; and no irregularity or misconduct of the captor, in the subsequent disposition of the prize, can confer jurisdiction as to the original taking, or is, in itself, a ground of action at common law. 16 Johns. Rep 327-- Novio v. Hallet. C. Errors, N. I. 1819.

434 An alien may take lands by devise in Massachusetts. Aliens. The 9th article of the Treaty of 1794 with Great Britain, Treaty British was not annulled by the war of 1812. That article applied,

as well to vested remainders as to estates in possession. 12

Mass. 143--Fox v. Southack, Sup. C. Mass. 1815.