The enemy Neutrals. 637. Although the property may belong to a neutral, yet Trade with if engaged in a trade which can only be carried on by a hos Prize. tile subject, it is liable to confiscation as the property of an enemy, although the shipment be previous to the war Ann Green-1 Gallison, 274, 289, C. C., Massachuset. 8, 1812. 638. In time of war, property will not be permitted to Admiralty. change character in its transit, nor shall property consigned to become the property of the enemy, on arrival, be protected Transit. by the neutrality of the shipper. Id. ib. Prize. Neutrals. Admiralty. 659. Every vessel, whether armed or not, has a right of selfdefence against hostile attacks, and the master has a large dis- Self-defence. cretion on this subject. He is not bound to attempt an escape in the first instance, and only to repel an attack when made. He is, on the other hand, at liberty to lay to, or attack the enemy ship, or chase her, if he deems that the best means of self-defence, and is not bound to wait until a direct attack is made on his own vessel; for self-defence may then be fruitless by his being crippled. Haven et al v. Holland—2 Mason, 230. C. C., Massachusetts, 1820. Prize 640. If a vessel capture a hostile vessel in self-defence, she Admiralty. has a consequent right to take possession of the prize; and to put a crew on board, for she has a right to make her victory effectual. Id. ib. River 641. Where there is no exclusive occupation of a river or Law of nations. bay, the law of natious gives to the nations inhabiting the opsite sides, the right to go to the middle of the stream, calculated from low-water-mark. The Fame-5 Mason, 147, C. C., Boundary. Maine, 1822. 642. But although the territorial line of a nation, for the Law of nations. purposes of absolute jurisdiction, may not extend beyond the middle of the stream, yet the right to the use of the whole River. river, or bay, for the purposes of trade, navigation and passage, may be common to both nations. Id. ib. 643. The law of the place, where a contract is made, is Lex loci. generally speaking, the law by which the contract is expounded but the right of priority forms no part of the contract; it is rather a personal privilege dependent on the law of the place where Foreign laws. the property lies, and where the court sits, which is to decide the cause. Harrison v. Sterry-5 Cranch, 289, 298, Supreme court, United States, 1809. 644. In the administration of the estate of a deceased per- Lex loci. son, the assets are always distributed according to the digni ty of the debt as regulated by the laws of the country where Foreign laws. Administration. the representative of the deceased acts, and from which he derives his powers; not by the law of the country where the contract was made. Id., 299. Lex loci. Foreign laws. Bills of exchange. Lex loci. Foreign laws. Bankrupt laws. Lex loci. 645. In an action by the endorsee against the endorser of a foreign bill of exchange, the defendant is liable for damages according to the law of the place where the bill was endorsed. Slacum v. Pomeroy-6 Cranch, 221, Sup. court U. S., 1810. 646 The title to land can be acquired and lost only in the manner prescribed by the law of the place, where such land is situated. United States v. Crosby-7 Cranch, Supreme C. U. S., 1812. Clark v. Graham-6 Wheaton, 577, Supreme court. U S., 1821. Robinson v. Campbell-s Wheaton, 212, Supreme court, United States, 1818. Kerr v. Moor's devisees— 9 Wheaton, 565, Supreme court, United States, 1824. McCor. nich v. Sullivan-10 Wheaton, 192, Supreme court United States, 1825. Darby's lessee v. Mayer-10 Wheaton, 465. 647. A discharge under a foreign bankrupt law is no bar to an action in the courts of this country, on a contract made here. McMillan v. McNeill-4 Wheaton, 209, Supreme court, United States, 1819. 648. A person claiming under a will proved in one state Administration. cannot intermeddle with, or sue for, the personal or real effects of a testator in another state, unless the will be proved and letters testamentary be obtained in that other state, or unless he be permitted to do so by some law of that other Kerr v. Moore's devisees-9 Wheaton, 565, Supreme Foreign laws. Foreign laws. Foreign laws. Bankrupt. Poreign laws. state. court U. S., 1824. 649. In a contract for the loan of money, the law of the case where the contract was made, is to govern, and it is immaterial that the loan was to be secured by a mortgage on lands in another state. De Wolf v. Johnson-10 Wheaton, 367, S. court United States, 1825. 650. Independent of the constitution of the United States, a discharge under the laws of a state may perhaps be a good bar, even as to foreign contracts of an action brought in the courts of that state; because the courts are bound by such laws, and the party seeking remedy in such courts must do it according to the laws of such state. Babcock v. Weston1 Gallison, 168, C. C., Rhode Island, 1812. 651. So also in case of a contract made in a state between citizens of that state, a discharge, good by its laws, may be good every where. The general rule is, that a contract is governed as to its construction and efficacy, by the law of the place where it is made, and a discharge, good there, would be sufficient in every jurisdiction. But this rule does not extend to support a bar to the contract where such bar happens to be good, merely by the law of the place, where the action is brought, and the party is found, unless the courts within that state, where the remedy is sought, are exclusively bound by its regulations. Id. ib. Bankrupt. 652. The discharge of an insolvent, under the laws of one Foreign laws. of these United States, is no discharge of a contract made, Lex loci. Bankrupt. and to be executed, in a foreign country. Van Reimsdyk v. Kane et al-1 Gallison, 371, C. C. Rhode Island, 1812. 553. Upon a foreign contract, between foreigners, the Foreign laws. remedy in a suit in this country, must be such as the court can judicially give, according to its course of practice, and the laws of this country, although a different and more specific remedy might have been had in the courts of the country where the contract was made. Courtois v. Carpentier-1 Washington Circuit Court Reports, 376. C. C. Pennsylvania, 1806. Lex loci. Foreign laws: Lex loci. Lex loci. 654. Interest is to be given according to the laws of the place of contract. Cowqua v. Landerbrun-1 Washington Circuit Court Reports, 521. C. C. Pennsylvania, 1806. 655. The law of the place of contract, is the law of the contract, as well as of its discharge. The laws of a country cannot operate upon persons not within the jurisdiction of Foreign laws. the country, nor upon contracts made and to be executed in another country. Green v. Sarmiento-3 Washington's Circuit court Reports, 17. C. C. Pennsylvania, 1811. Bankrupt. Foreign laws. 656. The laws of a foreign country, where a contract is made, will be regarded by the tribunals of another country; and so will the same laws which discharge the debtor from the Lex loci. obligations of his contract-But as to the mere forms of Bankrupt: proceedings, the laws of the country, to whose tribunals the appeal is made, must govern. Webster v. Massey-2 Washington's Circuit court Reports, 157. C. C. Pennsylvania, 1808. Lex loci. 657. A commission of Bankruptcy, issued in England, Foreign laws. cannot affect the operation of the attachment law of one of these United States. Harrison v. Sterry & al. Bee, 244 Bankrupt. District court South Carolina, 1807. 658. When a voyage ends in a foreign country, or is broken up there, and no treaty or compact designates the mode of proceeding, suits may be prosecuted there; and the determination should be according to the law of the country to Foreign laws. Lex loci. Mariners. which the vessel belongs Thompson & al. v. The Catharine -1 Peter Admiralty Decisions, 104. District court Pennsylvania, 1795. 659 Seamen, by the laws and usages of all countries, Law of nations. belong to the nation. In other countries, the courts would assist our consuls in restoring American seamen to their Consul. own country, and our courts should perform the same good office towards foreign Consuls, endeavouring to send home their seamen from this country; always under the superintendence of the courts, to see that no hardship or imposition is practised on the seamen. Robinson & al. v. The Cacique. District court Pennsylvania, 1823. Coxe's Digest. Tit. Mariner, § 159. Admiralty. Jurisdiction. 660. A capture made by a vessel, owned and fitted out in a neutral country, is unlawful; and the captured vessel will Law of nations. be restored by the courts of the neutral nation. La Conception-6 Wheaton, 235, Supreme court, U. S., 1821. Fanny-9 Wheaton. 658, Supreme court, U. S 1824. Admiralty. Law of nations. War. Neutrals. Law of nations. War. Neutrals. Freight. The 661. A neutral nation may, if so disposed, without a breach of neutrality, grant permission to both belligerents to equip their vessels of war within her territories. But without such permission, the subjects of such belligerent powers have no such right; and such unauthorised acts violate the sovereignity and rights of such neutral nations. All captures made by means of such equipments are illegal, in relation to such nation: and it is competent for her courts to punish the offenders, and, in case the prizes are brought infra præsidia, to order them to be restored. If such equipment be by taking persons on board in the neutral port, it is immaterial whether they are subjects of the neutral nation, or foreigners domiciled therein. Neither the law of nations, nor the laws of the United States recognize any dis. tinction, except in respect to the subjects of the state, in whose service they are enlisted, transiently within the neutral country. The Alerta v. Blas Moran-9 Cranch, $59, Supreme court, U. S., 1815. 662. A neutral may lawfully put his goods on board of a belligerent ship for transportation, and the hostile character of the vessel will not condemn the goods. The Nereide9 Cranch, 388, Supreme court, U. S. 1815. 663. The neutral carrier of enemy-goods, captured and condemned, is entitled to his freight, if his conduct be fair and not unneutural, and the goods be not contraband, and he, be not carrying on a colonial trade of the enemy, not open to Prize. Prize. him in time of peace; and if he be not guilty of spoliation of Admiralty. papers, or carrying dispatches to the enemy, or engaging in the transport service of the enemy, or breaking blockade, &c. The Commercen--1 Wheaton, 382. Supreme court, U. S. 1816. 664. In cases of violation of our neutrality by any of the Admiralty. belligerents, if the prize come voluntarily within our territory, it is restored to the original owners by our courts; but Neutral. their jurisdiction for this purpose, under the law of nations, Jurisdiction." extends only to the restitution of the specific property, with Law of nations. costs and expenses during the pendency of the suit, and does not extend to the infliction of vindictive damages, as in ordinary cases of marine tort. La Amistad de Rues-5 Wheaton, $85, Supreme court, U. S., 1820. Prize. 665. Shipments made by an enemy's house, on account Admiralty. and risk, exclusively and bona fide, of a neutral partner, or Neutrals. house, are not subject to confiscation as prize of war. The Law of nations. San Jose Indiano--2 Gallison. 268, C. C., Mass., 1814. 666. The liberty of selling prizes, taken by a belligerent in Admiralty. a neutral territory, is not a perfect right, but may be regulated Prize. by the neutral government. The William-1 Adm. Descis- Law of nations. ions, 12, District court Penn. 1793. Maun v. Sacks-Hee, 202, District court South Carolina, 1804. Neutrals. Law of nations. 667. The rights of neutrals were not established for the be- Neutrals. nefit of belligerent parties. An invasion of these is an of fence to the neutral only, and not to the belligerent. Moxon et al v. The Fanny-2 Adm. Decisions, S09, District court Penn. 1793. 668. The laws of neutrality, and of nations do not forbid neutral vessels to go to sea armed and fitted for defensive war. British consul v. The Mermaid-Bee, 69, District court South Carolina, 1795. Id. Id. 669. The commission of a privateer who seizes a vessel Piracy. animo furandi will not protect him from the charge of piracy. Privateer. U. States v. Klintock-5 Wheat. 144, Sup. court U. S. 1820. 670. A port of the United States captured and occupied by War. the enemy during the war, was not, while so occupied, a port of the United States whose sovereignty over it was by such Conquest. occupation suspended;-nor was it a port within the dominions of Great Britain, for it had not permanently passed under her sovereignty. United States v. Hayward-2 Gallison, 485, C. C. Mass. 1813. 671. Kemitting, in satisfaction of debts, to subjects of a na- Trade with tion at war, is no violation of the duties of a citizen. Miller Enemy. et al. v. The Resolution-2 Dallas, 1-10, Federal court Appeals, 1781. |