Foreign Attachment.

20. It is no ground for dismissing a foreign | E, by the endorsement of the bill. Corser v. attachment, instituted in the circuit court, that Craig, 1 Wash. C. C. R. 424. the plaintiff had sued out another attachment against the defendant in a state court, and afterwards discontinued it. Ibid.

29. Property, in the hands of a third person, he having a lien thereon, is not attachable in a suit against the general owner; but if the lien 21. A judgment debtor is not liable to be at- be waived, the objection does not lie in the tached as a garnishee, under the foreign attach-mouth of the general owner. Meeker v. Wilson, ment act of Rhode Island. Franklin v. Ward, 31 Gallis. C. C. R. 419. Mason's C. C. R. 136.

22. By the foreign attachment act of Rhode Island, [Digest, 1798, p. 208, sec. 4,] if the garnishees are discharged upon their disclosure, the suit is to be dismissed against the principal, as well as against the garnishees. Ibid.

23. Judgment in a trustee process against the defendant as a garnishee of the plaintiff, is no defence in a suit for the debt, if the plaintiff in the original trustee process has, by his neglect to comply with the local laws, put his judgment in a state of suspension, so that execution can no longer issue upon it, and it cannot be revived by a scire facias. Flower v. Parker, 3 Mason's C. C. R. 247.

24. As to the true nature and extent of the trustee process, authorized by the statute of Massachusetts of 1794, ch. 65: it seems that it does not authorize an attachment of any property which is not tangible, and might be levied on execution, if discovered, or of any debts or credits, where the trustee sets up any title or claim adverse to that of the debtor; for example, where the trustee claims under a post-nuptial settlement by the debtor. Picquet v. Swan, 4 Mason's C. C. R. 443.

25. Where persons, sued as trustees in a foreign attachment, assert an adverse title to the property in a third person, as her separate property, they are not bound to answer how they have disposed of it for her use, from time to time. Ibid.

26. A trustee may, in a foreign attachment process, set off against a debt or claim due from him to the debtor, any claim he has against the debtor, which she could set off in an adverse suit at law brought by the debtor himself. Ibid.

27. Where an attachment is laid on money in the hands of a third person, interest ceases from the time of the attachment until it is dissolved; but when a debtor, who is also a creditor, lays an attachment in his own hands, interest is chargeable during the continuance of the attachment. Willings v. Consequa, 1 Peters'

C. C. R. 301.

28. A having funds in the hands of B, drew a bill of exchange in favour of C, who endorsed it to D and E, to whom he was indebted, and the bill being protested for non-acceptance, D and E brought a suit against B, the drawer, in the name of C, the endorser; and before judgment, an attachment was laid upon the funds in the hands of B as the property of C, and judgment obtained against B, as the garnishee. Held, that the attachment will not affect the right of D and E to recover the amount of the bill from the drawer; the right to the funds in the hands of he drawer, being completely vested in D and

30. If chattels are sold on an execution, the regularity of such sale cannot be contested by mere strangers. Ibid.

31. Notice of an assignment of chattels in a judgment creditor, where possession has never been taken under the assignment, does not affect the right of the sheriff or the creditor to seize the property in execution, as the property of the assignor. Ibid.

32. Process of foreign attachment cannot be properly issued by the circuit courts of the United States, in cases where the defendant is domiciled abroad, or not found within the district in which the process issues, so that it can not be served upon him. Toland v. Sprague, 9 Peters, 300.

33. By the general provisions of the laws of the United States:-1. The circuit courts car issue no process beyond the limits of their dis tricts. 2. Independently of positive legislation, the process can only be served upon persons within the same districts. 3. The acts of congress adopting the state process, adopt the form and modes of service only, so far as the persons are rightfully within the reach of such process, and did not intend to enlarge the sphere of the jurisdiction of the circuit courts. 4. The right to attach property to compel the appearance of persons, can properly be used only in cases in which such persons are amenable to the process of the circuit court, in personam; that is, where they are inhabitants, or found within the United States, and not where they are aliens, or citizens resident abroad, at the commencement of the suit, and have no inhabitancy here. Ibid.

34. In the case of a person being amenable to process, in personam, an attachment against his property cannot be issued against him; except as a part of, or together with process to be served upon his person. Ibid.

35. A party against whose property a foreign attachment has issued in a circuit court of the United States, although the circuit court had no right to issue such an attachment, having ap peared to the suit, and pleaded to issue, cannot afterwards deny the jurisdiction of the court. The party had, as a personal privilege, a right to refuse to appear; but it was also competent to him to waive the objection. Ibid.

36. An attachment commenced, and conducted to a conclusion before the institution of a suit against the debtor in a court of the United States, may be set up as a defence to the suit; and the defendant would be prohibited pro tanto under a recovery had by virtue of the attachment, and could plead such recovery in bar. So, too, an attachment pending in a state court prior to the commencement of a suit in the cour of the United States, may be pleaded in abate

Foreign Governmes t.-Foreign Judgments, and Foreign Sentence.

ment. The attachment of the debt it. such case in the hands of the defendant, would fix it there, in favour of the attaching creditors, and he defendant could not afterwards pay it over the plaintiff. The attaching creditor would, in such a case, acquire a lien on the debt binding on the defendant, and which the courts of all other governments, if they recognise such proceedings at all, would not fail to regard. The rule must be reciprocal, and when the suit in one court is commenced prior to proceedings under attachment in another court, such proceedings cannot arrest the suit. Wallace v. M'Connell, 13 Peters,

Foreign Judgments, and Foreign Sentence.

5. If a claim be set up under sentence of condemnation of a foreign court, the supreme court will examine into the jurisdiction of that court; and if that court cannot, consistently with the law of nations, exercise the jurisdiction which it has assumed, its sentence is to be disregarded: but of their own jurisdiction over it, as it depends upon municipal laws, the courts of every country are the exclusive judges. Every sentence of condemnation by a competent court having jurisdiction over the subject-matter of its judgment, is conclusive as to the title to the thing claimed under it. Rose v. Himely, 4 Cranch, 292; 2 Cond. Rep. 98.

nal in Louisiana, is not void because it was made after the cession of the country to the United States; for it is historically known that the actual possession of the country was not surrendered until some time after the proceedings and adjudication in the case took place. It was the judgment, therefore, of a competent Spanish tribunal, having jurisdiction of the case, and rendered whilst the country, though ceded, was, de facto, in the possession of Spain, and subject to Spanish laws. Such judgments, so far as they affect the private rights of the parties thereto, must be deemed valid. Keene v. M'Donough, 8 Peters, 308.

14. That a sentence is avowedly made under a decree subversive of the law of nations, will not help the appellant's case, in a court which cannot revise, correct, or even examine that sentence. Ibid.

15. A valid sentence of condemnation, property

6. In every case of a foreign sentence condemning a vessel as prize of war, the authority of the tribunal to act as a prize court must be examinable. The question whether the vessel was in a situation to subject her to the jurisdiction of that court, is also examinable. Ibid. 7. The sentence of a foreign court of admi-authenticated, may afford protection to a third ralty condemning a vessel for breach of block-person: yet if the captured property is found in ade, is conclusive evidence of that fact in an action on the policy of insurance. Croudson et al. v. Leonard, 4 Cranch, 434; 2 Cond. Rep. 162. 8. In an action upon a policy on property warranted neutral, "proof of which to be required in the United States only," a sentence of con. demnation in a foreign court of admiralty, upon he ground of breach of blockade, is not conclusive evidence of a violation of the warranty. The Maryland Insurance Company v. Wood, 7 Cranch, 402; 2 Cond. Rep. 548.

9. A sentence of a foreign tribunal, condemning neutral property under an edict unjust in itself, contrary to the law of nations, and in violation of neutral rights, and which has been so declared by the legislative and executive departments of the government of the United States, changes the property of the thing condemned. Williams et al. v. Armroyd et al., 7 Cranch, 423; 2 Cond. Rep. 556.

10. A French tribunal at Guadaloupe had jurisdiction of property seized on the high seas for breach of the Milan decree, and carried into the Dutch part of the island of St. Martin's, and there sold by order of the Dutch governor of St. Martin's, before condemnation, without any authority from the French tribunal at Guadaloupe. Ibid. 11. The American owner cannot reclaim, in the courts of this country, his property which has been seized and condemned in a French court under the Milan decree. Ibid.

the hands of the offender himself, it is immate rial whether he can produce a regular condem. nation or not; the original taint is restored by the property coming into his hands. The Gran Para, 7 Wheat. 471; 5 Cond. Rep. 328.

16. It is incumbent on a defendant, who claim: a vessel under condemnation by a foreign tribu nal, to prove that the tribunal was properly con stituted; if this is not done the condemnation is a nullity. When the condemnation is by a fo reign court, it will be presumed to be legal, if the constitution of the court be known. Snell et al. v. Faussatt, 1 Wash. C. C. R. 271.

17. The erection of courts in all civilized coun. tries is the act of the sovereign, although he may delegate the authority to subordinate agents. Ibid.

18. A certificate of the proceedings of a fo reign court, under the seal of a person who styles himself the secretary of foreign affairs in Por tugal, is not evidence. Church v. Hubbard, 2 Cranch, 187; 1 Cond. Rep. 385.

19. Foreign judgments are authenticated, 1. By an exemplification under the great seal; 2. By a copy, proved to be a true copy; 3. By the certificate of an officer authorized by law, which certificate itself must be properly authenticated. These are the usual, and appear to be the most proper, if not the only modes of verifying foreign judgments. Ibid. 238.

20. If the decrees made in the colonies, are 12. It appears to be settled in this country transmitted to the seat of government and regis that the sentence of a competent court, proceed-tered in the department of state, a certificate of ing in rem, is conclusive with respect to the thing that fact, under the great seal, with a copy i itself, and operates as an absolute change of the the decree, authenticated in the same mannel property. By such sentence the right of the would be sufficient prima facie evidence of the former owner is lost, and a complete title given verity of what was so certified. Ibid. to the person who claims under this decree. No court of co-ordinate jurisdiction can examine the sentence. The question, therefore, respecting its conformity to general or municipal law can never arise, for no co-ordinate tribunal is capable of making the inquiry. The decision in the case of Hudson and Smith v. Guestier, is considered as establishing this principle. Ibid..

21. Copies of the proceedings of a foreig prize court, are admissible in evidence, when certified under the seal of the court, by the deputy registrar, whose official character is cer tified by the judge of the court, and that of the judge by a notary public; being a court, this is the proper mode of authenticating its proceed ings. Yeaton v. Fry, 5 Cranch, 335; 2 Co

12 An adjudication made by a Spanish tribu- | Rep. 273.

Be.

Foreign Laws.

22. The record of condemnation of a vessel, | with foreign intercourse, and of that which is in a court of vice admiralty, is not evidence, per invested with the powers of war, seems to asThe seal does not prove itself, but must be sume a character of notoriety which renders it proved by a witness who knows it; or the hand-admissible in the courts of the United States. writing of the judge or clerk must be proved; or that it is an examined copy. The certificate of the American consul is not sufficient to authenticate it. Catlett et al. v. The Pacific Ins. Co.,

Paine's C. C. R. 594.

23. In order to prove a condemnation in a foreign prize court, it is only necessary to produce the libel and sentence. Marine Ins. Co. of Alexandria v. Hodgson, 5 Cranch, 206; 2 Cond. Rep. 347.

24. A paper purporting to be a record of the proceedings of a foreign court, cannot be read in evidence, without it has the sanction of the seal of the officer by whom it was made out; there being no proof that he had or had not a seal. Talcott v. Delaware Ins. Co., 2 Wash. C. C. R.

449.

25. Under the clause introduced into policies of insurance, relative to the sentence of a foreign court of admiralty, the foreign sentence is not conclusive in the courts of the United States to falsify the warranty, which the assured is still at liberty to vindicate. The underwriters may, nevertheless, read the proceedings of the foreign court as evidence; though not as conclusive evidence. Calbreath v. Gracy, 1 Wash. C. C. R.

219.

26. Where a party claims in the admiralty, under a condemnation in a foreign court, the libel, or other proceeding, anterior to the sentence, must be produced, as well as the sentence itself. La Nereyda, 8 Wheat. 108; 5 Cond. Rep. 400.

27. The legality of a capture is open for question until a decree of competent jurisdiction passes for condemnation as prize; then all courts and parties are estopped to say the capture is not legal. Miller et al. v. The Resolution,

2 Dall. 1.

Ibid.

4. The written laws of foreign countries must be proved by the laws themselves, if they can be procured; if not, inferior evidence may be admitted. The unwritten laws or usages of suck countries may be proved by parol; and when proved, the court have a right to construe them, and to decide on their effect. Consequa v. Wil lings, Peters' C. C. R. 225.

5. The rate of interest in China is so wel established to be twelve per centum per annum, that the court will not require it to be proved. Ibid.

6. Foreign laws are facts which must be proved before they can be received in a court of justice; they must be proved upon oath, unless they can be verified by some such high authority, that the law respects not less than the oath of an individual. A certificate by a consul is not a sufficient verification of them. Church v. Hubbard, 2 Cranch, 187; 1 Cond. Rep. 385.

7. The bankrupt law of a foreign country, cannot operate a legal transfer of property in this country. Harrison v. Sterry et al., 5 Cranch, 289; 2 Cond. Rep. 260.

8. If foreign laws and regulations respecting trade be not proved to have been in writing as public edicts, they may be proved by parol. Livingston and Gilchrist v. The Maryland Insurance Company, 6 Cranch, 274; 2 Cond. Rep. 370.

9. A suit cannot be sustained in the United States, on a contract between foreigners, made in a foreign country, and upon which an action would not lie by the laws of that country. Camfranque v. Burnell, 1 Wash. C. C. R. 340.

10. A discharge under a foreign bankrupt law, is no bar to an action in the courts of this country, on a contract made here. M'Millan v. M'Neill, 4 Wheat. 209; 4 Cond. Rep. 424.

11. Massachusetts.-The circuit court is not

at liberty to enforce the municipal regulations of a foreign country, or to take cognizance of any frauds attempted on them. This rule is now too stubborn to be controlled, and has been so long established that it has become almost a formula in our text books. Per Story, justice. The Anne, 1 Mason's C. C. R. 511.

12. In two cases only can foreign laws affect the contracts of American citizens: first, when they reside or trade in a foreign country; and, secondly, when the contract, plainly referring to a foreign country for its execution, adopts and recognises the lex loci. Searight v. Calbraith, 4 Dall. 325.

13. It must be admitted as a general proposition, that the laws of one country cannot, in themselves, have any extra-territorial force; and whatever force they are permitted to have in foreign countries, must depend upon the comity of nations, regulated by a sense of their own interests and public convenience. Le Roy et al. v. Crowninshield, 2 Mason's C. C. R. 151.

14. The same reasons which have conduced

General Principles.

to the establishment of the rule, that personal contracts shall have the same solidity in every country, have engrafted on that rule another, that the same law which creates the charge, is to be regarded if it operate a discharge of the contract. Ibid.

15. A discharge from the debt under the bankrupt laws of the place where the contract is made, is good in every other place, when pleaded as an extinction of the debt. Ibid.

16. No court gives effect to the local laws of another country or state, in respect to the forms or force of process. When the right exists, the remedy is to be pursued according to the lex fori, where the suit is brought. Hinkley v. Marean, 3 Mason's C. C. R. 89.

17. Whether the British regulations respecting the colonial trade be consistent with the law of nations or not, the effect of them, and the decisions of the courts upon them, are the same to neutrals as if they were so. Kohne v. The Insurance Company of North America, 1 Wash. C. C. R. 93.

18. A law of a foreign country, which protects the party to a contract from execution, will, in the courts of the United States, protect the same individual from arrest upon the same contract. Camfranque v. Burnell, 1 Wash. C. C. R.

340.

19. Written statutes and edicts of foreign countries must be produced; common or unwritten laws may be proved by parol. Robinson v. Clifford, 1 Wash. C. C. R. 1.

1. The owner of goods cannot forfeit them by an act done without his consent or connivance, or that of some person employed or trusted by him. Peisch et al. v. Ware, 4 Cranch, 347; 2 Cond. Rep. 137.

2. A municipal forfeiture under the laws of the United States, is absorbed in the more ge neral operation of the law of war. The Sally; Porter, Master, 8 Cranch, 382; 3 Cond. Rep. 177.

3. The forfeiture of goods, for violation of the non-intercourse act of March 1st, 1809, takes place upon the commission of the offence, and avoids a subsequent sale to an innocent pur chaser; although there may have been a regular permit for landing the goods, and although the duties may have been paid. The United States v. 1960 Bags of Coffee, 8 Cranch, 398; 3 Cond.

20. Insurance on goods on board the Concord, at and from her port or ports, place and places of loading in Honduras to Liverpool, warranted free from loss, in consequence of, or detection on account of any illicit or prohibited trade. The vessel was captured in the bay of Honduras by a British vessel, as a prize, on the allegation that she was taking on board mahogany of larger dimensions than was allowed to Ameri-Rep. 187. can vessels; and while on her passage to Jamaica, she, with the capturing vessel, was lost. Held, that the privileges to cut mahogany are given to vessels under the treaties between Spain and England, 1762 and 1783. What is the proper construction of those treaties and of the proclamation and laws relative to the trade under 5. A municipal seizure cannot be justified or them, which have been issued or ordained by excused upon the ground of probable cause, unthe British government. Graham v. The Penn-less under the special provisions of some statute. sylvania Insurance Company, 2 Wash. C. C. R. The Apollon, 9 Wheat. 362; 5 Cond. Rep. 612.

113.

21. The laws of a foreign country, where a contract is made, will be regarded by foreign tribunals as to the obligations of the contract, and as to its discharge. Webster v. Massey, 2 Wash. C. C. R. 157.

22. The defendant was discharged by the bankrupt law of Teneriffe, in 1801. In 1796, a suit was instituted against him and another, in New York, by capias, and a judgment was obtained against him on the verdict of a jury in 1797. A suit was instituted in 1810 upon the judgment, to which he entered the plea of bankptcy, and a discharge by the laws of Teneriffe sbsequent to the rendition of the judgment. To support the plea of bankry in this case,

4. A forfeiture under the third section of the act of 28th June, 1809, ch. 9, will overreach a bona fide sale to a purchaser for a valuable con sideration, without notice of the offence. United States v. The Brigantine Mars, 8 Cranch, 417; 3 Cond. Rep. 198.

6. A court of chancery is not the proper tribunal to enforce a forfeiture; the remedy for the same being at law. Horsburg v. Baker et al., 1 Peters, 236.

7. The act of the 30th of March, 1802, having described what should be considered as the Indian country at that time, as well as at any future time when purchases of territory should be made of the Indians; the carrying of spirituous liquors into a territory so purchased, after March, 1802, although the same should be at the time fre quented and inhabited exclusively by Indians, would not be an offence within the meaning of the beforementioned acts of congress, so as to subject the goods of the trader, found in com pany with those liquors, to seizure and forfeiture.