Aliens. Treaty British. Aliens. Aliens. Aliens. Aliens. Aliens. 435. Alienage cannot be pleaded in bar: it must always be pleaded in abatement. 9 Mass. 363-Lewall v. Lee, Sup. court, Mass. 1812 Il. 377--Martin v. Wood, Sup. court, Mass. 1812. 12 do. 8--Levine v. Taylor, Sup. court, Mass. 1815. 436. The treaty of 1794, with Great Britain, does not prevent or cure the disability of a British subject as an Alien Enemy. The plea of Alien Enemy is a temporary disability only which ceases with the war. The effect of the plea is only to suspend the process; and the plea is defective when it concludes either in bar or in abatement of the writ. The form is a prayer whether the Plaintiff should be further answered. 11 Mass. 19--Hutchinson v. Brock, Sup. court, Mass. 1814. 437 Aliens resident in the United States, at the breaking out of a war, between their own country and the United States, or who come to reside in the United States, after the breaking out of such war, under an express or implied permis-ion, may sue as in time of peace; and it is not necessary for that purpose, that such aliens should have letters of safe conduct, or actual license to remain in the United States; but a license and protection will be implied from their being suffered to remain without being ordered out of the United States by the Executive. 10 Johns. 69-Clarke v. Morey, Sup. court, N. I. 1813. 45. An officer of the British army who was detained in the State of New York as a prisoner of war until December 1776, when he returned to England and died in 1800, never became a citizen of New York, but remained a British subject, and by reason of his alienage could not take lands by descent in 1792. 20 Johns. 313-Jackson v. White, Sup. court, N. F. 1822. 439. The declaration of Independence did not operate se completely to disunite the United States from Eugland, as to subject all British antenati to the disabilities of alienage. Their rights continued until the acknowledgement by Great Britain of our Independence. 2 Hals. 305-Den. v. Brown, Sup. court, N. Jersey, 1799. 440. The 4th §. of the act of Congress of 1802, which provides that the children of citizens of the United States, born abroad, shall be citizens of the United States, applies to those only whose parents were citizens of a state, as such, after the Union had commenced, and not parents born in a state, when a colony, before the adoption of the constitution. 16 Mass 230-Manchester v. Boston, Sup. court, Mass. 1819. 441. The whole personal estate of an alien enemy dying in Aliens. New York during the war, goes exclusively to his next of kin resident in New York, to the exclusion of such as were then resident in the enemy's country. 13 Johns. 1 Bradwell v. Weeks, court of Errors, N. York, 1815. 1 Johns. chancery Reports, 206 Couth Carolina, contra. 814. 442. When debt is brought on a foreign judgment rendered Foreign by default, the Court will go into the consideration of such judgments. judgment, and if it appear that it was surreptitiously obtained, Evidence. they will not sustain it 1 Tyler, 237-Waddams v. Burnham Cuperior Court. Vermont. 1801. 443. When a foreign judgment is produced in the Courts of Foreign Massachusetts, if the court which rendered the judgment had sentence. jurisdiction, the regularity of its proceedings cannot be called Evidence. in question. In an action of debt upon such judgment nil Freight debet is the general issue. 9 Massachusetts, Rep. 462— Bissel Judgments. v. Briggs, Superior Court, Massachusetts. 1813. Foreign judg 444. In an action on a foreign judgment it is competent for the defendant to avoid it by showing that he was not within ment. the jurisdiction of the foreign court. 8 Massachusetts, Rep. Evidence. 273-Buttrick v. Allen, Supreme Court, Massachusetts. 1811. 445. A decree of a foreign court of admiralty made without Foreign libel or trial, condemning a vessel and cargo for breach of block- sentence. ade, is not conclusive of that fact. 12 Massachusetts, Rep. 291— Evidence. Sawyer v. Maine. F. and M. Insurance Company, Supreme Court, Massachusetts. 1815. 446. The sentence of a foreign Court of admiralty is con- Foreign clusive only when it distinctly and specially states the causes sentence. of condemnation 8, Massachusetts, Rep. 5.6-Robinson v. Evidence. Jones, Supreme Court, Massachusetts. 181. 447. The cause of action for a balance due to a factor arises Aliens. in the country in which the factor resides. 15 Massachusetts, Rep. 427-Coolidge v. Poor, Sup. Court, Mass. 1818. laws. 448. Contracts are to be construed by the lex loci con- Lex loci. tractus unless, it appears from their tenor that they were Foreign entered into with a view to the laws of another place. \ S Conn. Rep. 253-Smith v. Mead, Sup. Court Errors, Connecticut. 1820. 449. Rights dependent upon nuptial contracts are to be determined by the lex loci contractus. 3 Johns C. R. 190— Decomche v. Savetier, Court of Chancery, N. Y. 819 Lex loci. Fugitives from justice. 450. It is the law and usage of nations, resting on the plain- Aliens. est principles of justice and public utility, to deliver ders charged with felony aud other high crimes, and fleeing 41 offenup from the country in which the crime was committed, into a foreign and friendly jurisdiction. When a case of that kind occus it is the duty of the civil magistrate, on due proof of the fact, to commit the fugitive, to the end that a reasonable time may be afforded for the Government here to deliver him up, or for the foreign Government to make the requisite application to the proper authorities here, for his surrender. Who are the proper authorities in this case, whether it be the executive of the state, or, as the rule is international, the executive authority of the United States, the only regular organ of communication with foreign powers, it is not now the occasion to discuss, it is sufficient to observe that if no application be made, and duly recognized within a reasonable time. the prisoner will then be entitled to his discharge upon Habeas corpus: whether such offender be the subject of the foreign government, or a citizen of this country would make no difference in the application of the principle. The 27th article of the treaty of 1795, with Great Britain, which provided for the delivery of criminals. charged with murder or forgery, was only declaratory of the law of nations, and is equally obligatory upon the two nations, under the sanction of public law. since the expiration of that treaty, as they were before. 4 Johns C. R. 108-Washburne's case. Chancellor of New York, 1819. 451. The United States will deliver up to Great Britain, offenders charged with murder or forgery, agreeably to the 27th article of the treaty of 1795. Bee, 266-U. S. v. Nash alias Robbins. District Court, S. C. 1799. 452. One who knowingly aids another in a trade with a public enemy in time of war, cannot recover compensation for his services. A lams' Reports, 184-Beach v. Kerzar. Sup. Court of Judicature, V. Hampshire, 1818. 453. During a war all communication and intercourse between citizens of the United States and the subjects of the enemy are illegal without the express permission of the Government, and no promise can arise by implication of law from such intercourse. 16 Johns. 438-Griswold v. Waddington, court of Errors, New York, 1819. 454 A citizen of one belligerent may lawfully withdraw his property from the country of the other belligerent, provided he does it in a reasonable time after the declaration of war, and does not himself go to the enemy's country for the purpose 15 Johus. 24-Amory v. McGregor. Suvreme Court, New-York, 1821. enemy. 455. A contract for the delivery of goods within the United Trade with States to a subject of the enemy's country, partly executed be fore the war, may be lawfully completed during the war, by delivery to the agent of the purchaser 19 Johns. 137-Buchannan v. Curry. Sup. court, New-York. 1821. 456. A bill of exchange drawn in New-York upon a person id. in England, during war with that country, for supplies furnished to a British vessel authorized by act of Congress to sail for a port of the enemy, may legally be remitted to England for collection. 15 Johns. 358-Suckley v. Furse. Sup. court New-York, 1818. Trade with 457. A contract for the ransom of a vessel captured by a Ransom. public enemy, is a lawful contract, and will sustain a suit in the Courts of the United States. A passport to protect a ransomed vessel from all other vessels of the same nation may be received without a violation of the act of Congress of 1813. 15 Johns. 6-Goodrich v. Gordon. Sup. court New-York, 1818. enemy. Capture on land. Prize. 458. Property taken in a battle on land does not vest in the War. captor until the battle is over; and this is not until all pursuit has ceased and all hope of recovery gone. Moveable things taken from an enemy in a war on land belong to the sovereign of the captor. 13 Johns. 276-Cook v. Howard. Sup court, New-York, 1816. Officer. New states. 459. An officer in the Navy of the United States, may law- War. fully sink a vessel employed as a transport in the service of the United States, and laden with munitions of war, to prevent them from falling into the hands of the enemy, and is not liable to the owner of the vessel for its value. 17 Johns. 46-Bronson v. Woolsey. Sup, court New-York, 1819. 460. The parts of the Island of St Domingo. which, in 1810 St. Domingo. were respectively under the Government of Petion and Christophe, were not to be considered as independent states, within the meaning of the act of Congress of June 5th, 1794, prohibiting armaments against foreign states with whom the United States were at peace. 13 Johns 141-Hoyt v Gelston, Sup. court, New-York, 1816. S. C. in court of Errors, 13 Johns. 561. 1816. 461. The laws of a foreign country may be proved by oral Foreign laws. testimony. 14 Mass. Rev. 455-Frith v. Sprague, Sup. court Mass 1817. Evidence. 462. The public national seal of a foreign state is noticed National seal. judicially by the tribunals of other states; and the record of Law of nations. a judgment authenticated by such seal, need not be accompa⚫ Evidence. Foreign re⚫ords. Foreign sen Evi nce. Admiralty. Rescue. Enemy license. id. Prize. Search. Prize. Admiralty. nied by any certificate of its being a copy under the officica! signatures of any officer of the court rendering such judgment. 2 Conn. Reports. 85-Griswold v. Pitcairn, Supreme court Errors, Conn. 1816. 463. The seal of a foreign court of admiralty need not be proved. 3 Conn. Rep. 171— Thompson v. Stewart, Supreme court Errors, Connecticut, 1819. 464. A rescue by the crew of a neutral vessel, captured by a belligerent for an alleged violation of neutrality, is a good cause of condemnation. 8 Mass. Kep. 536—Robinson v. Jones. Sup court Mass. 1812. 12 Mass. Rep. 246—McLellan v. Me. F. and M. Insurance Co. S. P. Sup. court Mass. 1815. 465. An enemy's license to a neutral vessel will not avoid the policy. 12 Mass. Rep. 176-Hayward v. Blake, Supreme court Mass. 18:3. 466. The acceptance and sailing under an enemy's license is an illegal act, without regard to the object of the voyage; and no action can be maintained on a policy containing a warranty that the vessel should have an enemy's license. 15 Johns. 352 -Clquhoun v. N. Y. Firemen Ins. Co Sup. court. N. Y 1818. 467. The goods of a merchant domiciled in the enemy's country at the breaking out of war, are liable to condemnation as enemy's property. 16 Johns. 128—Elbers v. U. S. Ins. Company, Sup. court New-York. 1819. 468. The belligerent right of search draws after it a right to the production and examination of the ship's papers. Livingston v. Maryland Ins. Co.--7 Cranch, 544, Sup. court U. S. 18.3. 469. Concealment and even spoliation of papers do not ordinarily induce a condemnation of the property; but they always afford cause of suspicion, justify capture and detention, Further proof. and by inducing a refusal of further proof, may lead to condemnation. Ibidem-see also the Pizarro-2 Wheaton, 227, Sup. court U. S 1817. Admiralty. Capture on land. Admiralty. Notice of seiz are. 470. The prize jurisdiction is not confined to mere captures at sea; it does not depend upon locality, but upon the subject matter. It takes cognizance, not only of captures made at sea, and in creeks, &c. but of all captures on land by a naval force, or by co-operation with a naval force. Brown v. U. S. -8 Cranch, 139. Sup. court U. S. 1814. The Emulous, 1 Gallison, 574. C. C. Massachusetts, 1-13. 471. Those who have no interest in the vessel which could be asserted in the court of admiralty, have no notice of her seizure, and cannot be considered as parties in the proceeding |